Anda di halaman 1dari 39

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] On: 25 September 2014, At: 07:08 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

This article was downloaded by: [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] On: 25 September 2014, At: 07:08 Publisher: Taylorhttp://www.tandfonline.com/loi/teis20 A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity Amy Van Looy , Manu De Backer & Geert Poels Faculty of Business Administration and Public Administration – Department of Management and ICT , University College Ghent , Ghent , Belgium Faculty of Economics and Business Administration – Department of Management Information Science and Operations Management , Ghent University , Ghent , Belgium Faculty of Applied Economics – Department of Management Information Systems , University of Antwerp , Antwerp , Belgium Faculty of Business and Economics – Department of Management Informatics , K.U.Leuven, Leuven , Belgium Published online: 24 May 2012. 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 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2012.688222 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE 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. " id="pdf-obj-0-6" src="pdf-obj-0-6.jpg">

Enterprise Information Systems

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity

Amy Van Looy a b , Manu De Backer a b c d & Geert Poels b a Faculty of Business Administration and Public Administration – Department of Management and ICT , University College Ghent , Ghent , Belgium b Faculty of Economics and Business Administration – Department of Management Information Science and Operations Management , Ghent University , Ghent , Belgium

  • c Faculty of Applied Economics – Department of Management Information Systems , University of Antwerp , Antwerp , Belgium

  • d Faculty of Business and Economics – Department of Management Informatics , K.U.Leuven, Leuven , Belgium Published online: 24 May 2012.

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

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, 1

88 224, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2012.688222

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014 Enterprise Information Systems , 2014 Vol.

A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity

Amy Van Looy a,b *, Manu De Backer a,b,c,d and Geert Poels b

a Faculty of Business Administration and Public Administration – Department of Management and

ICT, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; b Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration – Department of Management Information Science and Operations Management,

Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; c Faculty of Applied Economics – Department of Management

Information Systems, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; d Faculty of Business and

Economics – Department of Management Informatics, K.U.Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

(Received 28 October 2011; final version received 22 April 2012)

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 today’s competitive world. Hence, business process maturity is an emerging

research field. However, no consensus exists on the capability areas (or skills)

needed to excel. Moreover, their theoretical foundation and synergies with

other fields 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 identified capability areas, based on content

analysis. Nonetheless, as a consensus neither exists among the collected

BPMMs, a classification of different maturity types is proposed, based on

cluster analysis and discriminant analysis. Consequently, the findings 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

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems 189

market and (2) growing IT possibilities to support business processes (Harrington 2006, vom Brocke and Rosemann 2010). But how well does an organisation improve its business processes? This brings us to ‘maturity’, which is a measure to indicate how excellent business processes can perform, i.e. expected performance. Maturity aims at systematically assessing and improving the capabilities, i.e. skills or competences, of business processes and their organisation needed to deliver higher performance, i.e. actual performance (Harrington 2006, Van Looy et al. 2011). de Bruin and Rosemann (2007) distinguish two types of maturity: (1) maturity of specific business processes and (2) maturity of business process manage- ment in general, i.e. of all business processes in the organisation. Since process improvements are not easy to realise, business process maturity models (BPMMs) have been designed from which organisations gradually benefit in 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 different 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 Johnson’s levels of ‘ad hoc’, ‘defined’, ‘linked’ and ‘integrated’ (McCormack and Johnson 2001). Although their primary focus differs, 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 findings 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 five 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 Rosemann’s framework with our conceptual framework and with other existing BPMMs. Furthermore, Mathiesen et al. (2011) refer to efforts of professional communities to standardise the capabilities (or skills) required per practitioner’s role in a body of

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 190 A. Van Looy et al.

knowledge. For instance, they differentiate 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.

. RQ1. Which capability areas can be assessed and improved by a BPMM in order to reach business (process) excellence? ! Identification and foundation of the conceptual framework . RQ2. Which capability areas are actually assessed and improved by existing BPMMs? ! Empirical validation of the conceptual framework, based on prior BPMM efforts . RQ3. If RQ2 shows that different capability areas are actually assessed and improved, do existing BPMMs measure different types of maturity? ! Classification of BPMMs to refine the earlier findings of de Bruin and Rosemann (2007)

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 fits their specific organisational needs. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 explains the methodology. As this research takes a top–down 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 classification is elaborated on (Section 5) and discussed (Section 6). Finally, Section 7 recalls the most important findings 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 classification. We refer to a conceptual framework, as the list contains three layers (i.e. main areas, sub areas and clusters). It is identified 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 classification refines the theoretical capability areas by

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems

191

Figure 1. Our conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity.
Figure 1.
Our conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business
process maturity.

reflecting different levels of coverage by existing BPMMs. The relationships with business (process) performance are, however, not empirically tested within the scope of this paper.

  • 2.1. Literature study (RQ1)

The conceptual framework was rigorously built by an iterative and top–down approach. First, three relevant concepts in the business process literature were defined: (1) business process (BP), (2) business process management (BPM) and (3) business process orientation (BPO). We used clear and accepted definitions to derive the capability areas that are related to these concepts. The BP, BPM and BPO concepts were already used in the context of BPMMs (McCormack and Johnson 2001, Harrington 2006, de Bruin and Rosemann 2007). Moreover, they are umbrella terms in contemporary business process literature. For instance, the radical business process reengineering and the incremental total quality management are two possible improvement approaches within BPM. Hence, we built on the business process fundamentals, instead of being biased by the lacking consensus on capability areas and the manifold BPMMs. Afterwards, this high-level perspective was refined in sub areas. Besides relying on the broader literature on business processes, we used validated theories to underpin the findings. Since BPMMs aim to improve business processes throughout their lifecycle, we relied on established theories regarding the traditional business process lifecycle. We must note that this lifecycle differs from a one-off project lifecycle, e.g. Prince2 (OGC 2010) or the Rational Unified Process (McGovern et al. 2004), in which project stages are defined to realise a particular process change (Stemberger and Jaklic 2007). We also looked for recognised organisation management theories in the field of (1) performance and change management,

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 192 A. Van Looy et al.

(2) human resource management and (3) strategic management. This link is appropriate, since most organisational changes also involve business processes (Baumo¨l 2010). Moreover, BPMMs aim to gradually increase business (process) performance (Jeston and Nelis 2006).

  • 2.2. Sampling (RQ2 and RQ3)

The resulting capability areas and sub areas were empirically validated by mapping them to a sample of existing BPMMs. To fully acknowledge prior BPMM efforts, we compare the theoretically found areas that a BPMM ‘can address’ with the empirically found areas that BPMMs ‘actually address’. Particularly, our purpose is to theoretically ground the capability areas in BPMMs. 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 identified 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 different process types (i.e. generic, supply chains and collaboration), our sample suggests versatility which facilitates transferability of our findings to other process types, e.g. software processes.

  • 2.3. Content analysis and descriptive statistics (RQ2)

The documents of the collected BPMMs were repeatedly analysed over time, beginning in the third quarter of 2010 until the second quarter of 2011. The first author was the main coder. In case of any confusion, the other authors were exhaustively consulted to obtain a reliable coding and investigator triangulation. This type of content analysis is called positivist (not interpretivist) text analysis by Lacity and Janson (1994), because researchers are assumed to be outsiders, who interpret texts from semantics without personal biases or experiences.

  • 2.4. Classification by multivariate statistics (RQ3)

If descriptive statistics show that BPMMs do not necessarily address all theoretical capability areas, a cluster tendency is demonstrated, which makes formal classification worthwhile (Jain et al. 1999). Classification is frequently conducted by combining cluster analysis (i.e. unsupervised or exploratory classification) with discriminant analysis (i.e. supervised or confirmatory classification) (Punj and Stewart 1983, Romesburg 1984). First, cluster analysis produces a BPMM classification based on the distance or similarity between the theoretical capability

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems 193

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 classification. 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 satisfied to properly conduct both cluster analysis and discriminant analysis (Klecka 1980).

  • 3. Main capability areas in the conceptual framework (RQ1, RQ2)

    • 3.1. Theoretical identification of main capability areas

In previous research (Van Looy et al. 2011), we derived six main capability areas from recognised definitions for BP, BPM and BPO. This section shows that two areas are attributed to BP (i.e. modelling and deployment), four to BPM (i.e. BP plus optimisation and management) and six to BPO (i.e. BPM plus culture and structure). Most definitions for a business process refer to a transformation of inputs to

outputs (Zairi 1997, Palmberg 2009). For instance, ‘a process is a series of interconnected activities that takes input, adds value to it, and produces output. It’s how

organizations work their day-to-day routines. Your organization’s processes define how

it operates’ (Harrington 2006, p. xxii). This transformational view originates from manufacturing and is less clear in service delivery. Hence, other definitions exist which emphasise a coordination of activities (Gillot 2008). Despite these different emphases, business process definitions implicitly focus on business process modelling and deployment. The latter means running processes in real life and is particularly underlined in Harrington’s definition (2006) by the verbs ‘work’ and ‘operate’. However, it implicitly requires modelling or predefining business processes in textual or graphical descriptions to determine what the inputs, activities and outputs can be at run-time (Weske 2007). The implicit assumptions of BP definitions are made explicit by BPM definitions. BPM involves continuously managing and improving business processes, guided by process owners. Depending on their background, authors underline more the IT benefits (Smith and Fingar 2002) or the management aspects (Lee and Dale 1998). Gillot (2008) and Gulledge Jr. and Sommer (2002) summarise four foci in BPM definitions: (1) modelling, (2) deployment, (3) optimisation, or improving business processes based on real metrics and (4) the management of business processes, each with a process owner and a cross-functional team. For instance, Weske (2007) defines BPM as ‘concepts, methods, and techniques to support the (1) design, (4) administration, (2) configuration, enactment, and (3) analysis of business processes’ (p. 5). BPM thus differs from BP by optimising and managing one, more or all business processes. In other words, BPM includes BP, but BP does not necessarily include BPM. A business process can run without optimisation or management efforts, albeit not in its most excellent way, but it always needs some (in)formal modelling. Consequently, the four foci are selected as main capability areas, of which the first two are attributed to BP and all four are attributed to BPM.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 194 A. Van Looy et al.

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) define 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 different nuances. Conse- quently, culture and structure are adopted as BPO-specific main capability areas, besides the four BPM areas. In summary, all six main capability areas must be assessed and improved in order 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 briefly 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 specific governance bodies to coordinate the management of all business processes within an organisation.

  • 3.2. Empirical validation of main capability areas

In order to obtain empirical validation, Appendix 2 shows that the actual capability areas of 69 BPMMs were mapped to their theoretical equivalents. In line with Section 3.1. the vertical lines separate the BP-, BPM- and BPO-specific capability areas. We must note that no other capability areas, additional to the six identified main areas, were present in the sample. Instead, it turned out that actual BPMMs do not necessarily cover all main capability areas. This particularly counts for ‘modelling’, ‘culture’ and ‘structure’, which are respectively covered by 56, 57 and 30 BPMMs (out of 69 models). The other areas are mostly present, i.e. 68 BPMMs for ‘deployment’ and ‘optimisation’ and 67 for ‘management’. Nevertheless, most models cover exactly four (17.4%), exactly five (37.7%) or exactly all six (37.7%) main areas. Descriptive statistics also showed that some BPMMs are limited to BPM

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems 195

capability areas, whereas most models cover at least one BPO-specific 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 ¼ 9). More often, BPMMs are used in a business domain with multiple (sub) processes (N ¼ 36). For instance, supply chains have business processes for buying, producing, selling and planning products and services. This finding confirms 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 (N ¼ 26), which rather take a management perspective instead of focusing on particular business processes. Hence, the empirical findings refine earlier findings (de Bruin and Rosemann 2007) by suggesting the existence of six maturity types: BPM maturity for one, more or all business processes and BPO maturity for one, more or all business processes. Few BPMMs offer multiple maturity types of which practitioners can choose according to the organisational needs, for instance for both a single business process and all business processes in Champlin (2008) and Hammer (2007). The findings also indicate that the concept of BP maturity itself has not been designed, since no model only addresses the ‘modelling’ and ‘deployment’ areas. However, our dataset is restricted to BPMMs for generic business processes, supply chains and process collaboration, as explained in the methodology section. Consequently, BP maturity may exist for BPMMs regarding specific business process types, such as manufacturing workflows, but this possibility is not further investigated.

  • 4. Capability sub areas in the conceptual framework (RQ1, RQ2)

    • 4.1. Theoretical identification of capability sub areas

The six main capability areas are now specified in 17 sub areas by relying on the business process and organisation management literature. We build on recognised theories that give evidence to the found sub areas, particularly (1) business process lifecycle theories and (2) organisation management theories regarding organisational change management, strategic management and human resources management. The first three main capability areas are primarily addressed by the business process lifecycle theories, whereas the other three are supported by organisation manage- ment theories. Figure 2 visualises that the first four main capability areas represent the characteristics of a specific business process. On the other hand, the final two main capability areas represent the characteristics of organisations. Hence, these characteristics impact their whole portfolio of business processes. Subsequently, each sub area is detailed by relying on the corresponding theories.

  • 4.1.1. Theories on the traditional business process lifecycle

The first business process lifecycles were presented by the classical quality thinkers:

Shewhart (1986) and Deming (1994). During the 1920s–1930s, Shewhart interpreted production processes as a cycle of specification (i.e. modelling), production

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 196 A. Van Looy et al.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014 196 A. Van Looy et al.

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 Shewhart’s 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 differ (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

first

phase(s) of the business process

lifecycle.

. Business process design deals with the identification and representation of a business process model. Designers start from an initial set of the business process purpose, performance targets (or KPIs, Key Performance Indicators), required behaviours and deliverables (zur Muehlen and Ho 2006, Weske 2007, Kannengiesser 2008). Based on this set, business processes are modelled in a textual and/or graphical representation. Netjes et al. (2006) explain that business process modelling specifies (1) the process structure, i.e. the relationship between inputs, activities, outputs, business rules and data, (2) the resource structure, i.e. who (e.g. role) or what (e.g. departments, IT)

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems

197

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 verification 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 verifies whether graphical models are compliant with the used notation language (Netjes et al. 2006, Weske 2007).

  • 4.1.1.2. Main capability area 2: deployment. Second, the ‘deployment’ capability

area includes methods and IT regarding the intermediate phase(s) of the business

process lifecycle.

. Business process implementation and enactment implies both the preparation and actual running of business processes. During implementation, the high- level business process models are translated into deployable models by adding operational details. The operational systems are selected, configured, tested and released. These systems include human process participants, who follow the defined procedures, and/or process-aware information systems, such as a BPM suite or a workflow system (zur Muehlen and Ho 2006, Weske 2007, Kannengiesser 2008). Business process enactment starts when business processes are actually executed by following the implemented procedures and software systems. Each time the business process runs in real life, a process instance is created (Kannengiesser 2008). Although implementation and enactment cover distinct lifecycle phases, they are intertwined regarding the aspects that need to be matured: all enactment changes are prepared by related implementation changes. . Business process measurement and control means gathering log files and real- time monitoring (Weske 2007). During business process enactment, the performance of business process instances must be measured by recording activities in log files (zur Muehlen and Ho 2006). It allows real-time monitoring (during enactment) and process optimisation (after enactment). The log files of active process instances are used to (1) maintain conformance with the business process models by correcting deviations and (2) to provide information on the current status of active instances, e.g. to customers (Netjes et al. 2006, Weske 2007). The use of log files after enactment belongs to the next capability area.

  • 4.1.1.3. Main capability area 3: optimisation. Third, the ‘optimisation’ capability

area contains methods and IT regarding the final phase(s) of the business process

lifecycle.

. Business process evaluation uses enactment information to quantify the performance of finished business process instances, specified during business process modelling, and the operational environment, specified during business process deployment. Two frequently used evaluation techniques are business

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 198 A. Van Looy et al.

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 Shewhart’s 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).

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).

  • 4.1.2. Theories on organisation management

To our knowledge, most business process lifecycle theories are restricted to the

phases above. A limited number mention some management aspects (zur Muehlen and Ho 2006, Weske 2007). Nevertheless, they do not cope with all success factors critical to mature business processes. vom Brocke and Sinnl (2011) explain that, starting from BPR in the 1990s, the business process literature ‘initially focused on

technical IT-related aspects of business processes and their design via technology.

(. .

.)

Researchers have only in recent years more broadly considered BPM to be an

integrated approach that moves beyond purely an IT focus’ (pp. 358–359). Hence, the three final main capability areas are concretised by relying on the broader business process literature. Eleven additional sub areas were found by following a twofold approach: (1) in the literature regarding four business process evolutions, i.e. business process reengineering (Davenport 1993, Hammer and Champy 2003), business process improvement (Harrington 1991), X-engineering (Champy 2002) and business process management (Smith and Fingar 2002) and (2) in review articles on business processes that differ from maturity theories (Lee and Dale 1998, Palmberg 2009, Kohlbacher 2010). These additional elements are also frequently mentioned in the general business process literature (Armistead and Machin 1997, Gulledge Jr and Sommer 2002, Silvestro and Westley 2002, Jeston and Nelis 2006, Gillot 2008, Neubauer 2009, Smart et al. 2009, Rosemann 2010, Scheer and Braba¨nder 2010, Trkman 2010). Moreover, the sub areas are underpinned by organisation management theories regarding: (1) performance and change management (Waterman et al. 1980, Burke and Litwin 1992), (2) human resource management (Boswell et al. 2006) and (3) strategic management (Kaplan and Norton 2001). Before digging into the details of the sub areas, the relationship between business processes and business (process) excellence is explained by these organisation management theories. The organisational performance and change theory of Waterman et al. (1980) claims that the organisation’s ability to change depends on the organisation strategy, structure, systems (or business processes), style, skills, staff and ‘superordinate goals’ (or culture). Burke and Litwin (1992) have formalised this claim in a causal model in which the external environment affects the organisational mission and strategy,

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems 199

leadership (or style) and culture. In turn, they affect 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) affect 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 scorecard (BSC) systematically derives KPIs regarding four perspectives: (1) the financial 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 influencers (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 specific business process is classified within the ‘management’ capability area. It concerns an effort per business process, instead of the whole organisation and its portfolio of business processes. Finally, Atkinson et al. (1997) define 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 organization’s 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 organisation’s way of doing business and is thus classified within the ‘culture’ capability area. Consequently, the organisation management theories discussed above clarify the importance of the identified sub areas for the final three main capability areas i.e. ‘management’, ‘culture’ and ‘structure’.

  • 4.1.2.1. Main capability area 4: management. The ‘management’ capability area

surrounds the traditional business process lifecycle by providing five sub areas

necessary to govern the previous sub areas.

. Strategy and KPIs. Since business processes must contribute to customer satisfaction and business performance, they need to serve the organisational

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 200 A. Van Looy et al.

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 must be actively involved in activities regarding business process modelling, deployment, optimisation or management. Examples are external commu- nication or committing to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with partnering suppliers and customers (Harrington 1991, Champy 2002, Smith and Fingar

2002).

. Roles and responsibilities. A permanent business process owner must be appointed by top management. He is responsible and accountable for the performance and continuous improvements of a specific business process, as well as for the budget, resources and the interfaces with other business processes. He can be assisted by a process team to model, deploy and optimise business processes. He also leads a cross-functional team of business process participants (Harrington 1991, Davenport 1993, Lee and Dale 1998, Gulledge Jr and Sommer 2002, Hammer and Champy 2003, Jeston and Nelis 2006, Gillot 2008, Palmberg 2009, Smart et al. 2009, Kohlbacher 2010, Trkman 2010). . Skills and training. In order to fulfil these roles, individuals must be trained to obtain the required skills and knowledge. Besides knowledge on the process models, employees can be trained in problem solving, process improvement and decision making (Harrington 1991, Smart et al. 2009, Trkman 2010). However, Trkman (2010) explains that a trade-off must be made between the use of specialist and generalist employees. . Daily management. The process owner applies project management activities, e.g. decision making, planning, budgeting, communication, business-IT alignment, change management, risk management, compliance management, quality assurance and configuration management (Davenport 1993, Rosemann

2010).

4.1.2.2. Main capability area 5: culture. As from the fifth capability area, i.e. ‘culture’, we cope with organisational characteristics, instead of a specific business process. This capability area has four sub areas.

. Values. A process-oriented culture implies ‘a certain set of values considered supportive of BPM objectives’ (vom Brocke and Sinnl 2011, p. 369). An organisation must cherish values that facilitate the realisation of the previous capability areas. Examples are a customer focus, empowerment, innovation, multidisciplinary collaboration and trust (Davenport 1993, Armistead and Machin 1997, Lee and Dale 1998, Champy 2002, Kohlbacher 2010).

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems 201

. Attitudes and behaviours. These values must be concretised in attitudes and behaviours that go beyond a specific business process. For instance, employees who are aware of the business processes within their organisation, who are motivated to do their job, who do not resist change, who share technological and organisational facilities, as well as lessons learned among business processes through a repository or social network (Davenport 1993, Lee and Dale 1998). . Appraisals and rewards. Employees must be appraised and rewarded according to the performance of business processes, instead of departments, e.g. by combining team incentives with individual benchmarks. Hence, process-related skills must be added to the job descriptions and career paths of all employees (Harrington 1991, Armistead and Machin 1997, Lee and Dale 1998, Hammer and Champy 2003, Smart et al. 2009, Kohlbacher 2010). . Top management commitment. Top managers must support or sponsor business processes (Harrington 1991, Lee and Dale 1998, Jeston and Nelis 2006, Gillot 2008, Palmberg 2009, Kohlbacher 2010). It implies (1) a leadership style, i.e. considering business processes as a way of managing the business and (2) a leadership role with responsibilities, i.e. a top manager (e.g. Chief Process Officer, CPO) who is centrally responsible for and actively engages in all business processes within the organisation, e.g. by assigning the process owner, or setting the business process strategy and KPIs (Scheer and Braba¨nder 2010).

  • 4.1.2.3. Main capability area 6: structure. Finally, the ‘structure’ capability area is

also an organisational characteristic. It implies a permanent, structural reconfiguration with two sub areas.

. Process-oriented organisation chart. Various authors suggest a shift from a vertical, departmental organisation towards a horizontal organisation (Daven- port 1993, Armistead and Machin 1997, Lee and Dale 1998, Gulledge Jr and Sommer 2002, Hammer and Champy 2003, Palmberg 2009, Kohlbacher 2010, Trkman 2010). By structurally emphasising end-to-end business processes or value chains, this shift expresses process-oriented values, such as a customer focus, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Silvestro and Westley (2002) explain the (dis)advantages of a vertical and horizontal organisation. A matrix structure allows combining both advantages. . Process-oriented management/governance bodies. Additional bodies must be created, such as (1) a process management council or office (per business process), (2) a program management council or office, or a steering committee (among business processes) and (3) a centre of excellence or support office (i.e. a competence centre to assist these councils) (Neubauer 2009, Kohlbacher 2010, Scheer and Braba¨nder 2010, Trkman 2010). A program manager must be assigned to coordinate the process owners. He leads a centralised centre of excellence, comprising process experts or internal consultants in methods and IT for process management and project management (Rosemann 2010, Scheer and Braba¨nder 2010). In other words, the centre of excellence is for the BPM head, what the improvement team is for the process owner. The realisation of centralised services belongs to the higher maturity levels of previous sub areas.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 202 A. Van Looy et al.

This sub area merely addresses the existence of the bodies, with associated roles and responsibilities among business processes.

  • 4.2. Empirical validation of capability sub areas

To check the strength of our conceptual framework, Appendix 2 demonstrates that all collected BPMMs were successfully mapped to the 17 capability sub areas, without identifying new sub areas. This means that the BPMMs showed no capability sub areas that could not be ranked in one of the theoretically identified sub areas. Nonetheless, only one model addresses all sub areas, i.e. (Champlin 2008). In line with Section 3.1. Appendix 2 separates the BP-, BPM- and BPO-specific sub areas by vertical lines. The mapping is summarised in Figure 3. 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-specific ‘culture’ capability area, particularly represented by the more tangible sub areas of ‘attitudes and behaviours’ and ‘appraisals and rewards’, without structural reconfigurations. 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.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014 202 A. Van Looy et al.

Figure 3.

The capability sub areas in actual BPMMs.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems

203

The mapping of theoretical capability areas to existing BPMMs has confirmed the comprehensiveness of our conceptual framework. Nonetheless, it turned out that some BPMMs are restricted to BPM capability areas, whereas others include BPO- specific capability areas. Also the sub areas are not always addressed. Consequently, different types of maturity seem to be measured by the existing BPMMs, which make statistical classification worthwhile.

  • 5. Classification (RQ3)

    • 5.1. Exploratory classification by cluster analysis

We applied trial-and-error to choose the algorithmic method and the number of clusters that best fit our data, by using SPSS (version 18). The independent variables 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 ¼ 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 ¼ 37). It makes abstraction of the specific 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 confirm the previous distinction between BPM maturity and BPO maturity, we opted for a refinement 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: Ward’s 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 fits our data.

. A Cohen’s Kappa value was computed as a measure of agreement on group memberships. A good agreement was found between both methods on the full dataset (kappa ¼ 0.4 5 0.455 50.75; p 5 0.001). Still 30 (out of 69) BPMMs were assigned to a different cluster, which indicates that both methods propose different solutions. When comparing the full and split dataset, more agreement exists. The Ward’s method showed a good to almost excellent agreement (kappa ¼ 0.4 5 0.703 50.75; p 5 0.001), with seven (out of 37) BPMMs being differently classified on the split dataset. Regarding k- means, an excellent agreement was found (kappa ¼ 0.815 4 0.75; p 5 0.001), with merely four (out of 37) BPMMs being differently classified on the split dataset. . Since both solutions statistically fit our data, the final clustering was guided by the meaningfulness of the proposed solutions. We have chosen Ward’s method as it almost equally divides the 69 BPMMs in three clearly separated clusters (i.e. 20, 23 and 26 BPMMs): a partial BPM cluster, a quasi-full BPO cluster

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 204 A. Van Looy et al.

and an intermediate cluster combining BPM with some BPO-specific capability areas.

The representation of the capability areas in the final 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 reconfiguration 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 cultural capability areas. Especially process-oriented attitudes and corresponding appraisals are highly represented. These tangible actions appear to be the first steps to introduce BPO in an organisation. Finally, the BPO cluster (C) covers quasi-all theoretical capability areas. However, adapting the whole organisation chart is more drastic and seems to be less obvious than establishing a competence centre. Nevertheless, this cluster gives evidence to the comprehensiveness of our literature study. Table 1 shows which BPMMs belong to which cluster. Each cluster contains models for generic BPs, supply chains and collaboration BPs. However, supply chains are mostly addressed in the clusters for BPM and intermediate BPO (A and B) and collaboration BPs in the intermediate BPO cluster (B). Hence, the quasi-full BPO option of cluster C primarily addresses generic BPs. We must note that group membership to a particular cluster does not imply that all models included are restricted to the typical characteristics of that cluster. For instance, the BPM cluster (A) also contains BPMMs addressing some BPO-specific capability areas, albeit in a minor way.

  • 5.2. Confirmatory classification by discriminant analysis

To validate the three clusters, a discriminant analysis was conducted to predict which BPMM belongs to which cluster. If this predicted group membership corresponds to

Table 1.

The group membership according to cluster analysis.

 

Cluster A (23)

Cluster B (26)

Cluster C (20)

BPM

Intermediate BPO

BPO

BP: AOU, ARM, BIS, BPM,

BP: BPT, CAM1, DEL,

BP: CAM2, CHA, FAA,

DET, ISO, MAU, MCC1,

ESI1, FIS, HAR2,

GAR1, GAR2, HAM,

O&I, SKR, SMI, SPA

ROH, RUM, SAP

HAR1, IDS, LEE, OMG,

SC: ABE, AND, ARY, CGR,

SC: BOH, CAM3, CHI,

ORA, REM, ROS, SCH1,

SEI, WIL

SC: CGF, EKN, LMI

IBM, JER, MAN, MCL,

CSC, MCC2, MIC,

RIV, SCC

NET, PMG, SCH2,

STE, TOK

Collaboration: SIM

Collaboration: ESI2,

Collaboration: TAP

FRA, MAG, RAM,

VIC, WOG

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems 205

the group membership obtained from cluster analysis, our proposed BPMM classification is confirmed. 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 significantly increase the proportion of total variability explained. Per method, the discriminant analysis calculated two linear equations, i.e. two discriminant functions (¼ the total number of clusters minus one), to predict group membership. In both methods, the discriminant functions were highly significant (p 5 0.001). The discriminant functions in the regular method respectively explain 96.3% and 75.3% of the total variability between the clusters (R 2 ), 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 classification 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.

Figure 4. The canonical discriminant functions to classify BPMMs (with unstandardised coefficients).
Figure 4.
The canonical discriminant functions to classify BPMMs (with unstandardised
coefficients).

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 206 A. Van Looy et al.

An approximation of the predicted memberships are visualised by circles per method. Since almost all BPMMs in each circle belong to the same cluster, it reveals that the classification results are fairly similar with those of the cluster analysis. A more formal statistic to validate the BPMM classification is shown in Table 2, as the degree of conformance between cluster analysis and discriminant analysis. Particularly, the original cluster membership (in the rows) is compared with the predicted group membership by the discriminant analysis (in the columns). Depending on which discrimination method was used, 85.51% or more of the BPMMs were predicted in the same clusters as in cluster analysis. This percentage is significantly higher than the percentage by chance (i.e. 33.33% for three clusters of equal size). The percentages of the stepwise method are more accurate, since they focus on the best discriminators. When translating to the formal Cohen’s Kappa, it means an excellent agreement between cluster analysis and discriminant analysis (kappa 4 0.75; p 5 0.001). The BPMM classification is thus strongly confirmed.

6. Discussion

Based on the theoretical capability areas to reach business (process) excellence, our sample is classified into three maturity types: BPM maturity, intermediate BPO maturity and BPO maturity. This formal classification refines 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 reconfigurations 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 specific situation, for instance by case studies or surveys among organisations. Nevertheless, this paper remains restricted to the theoretical identification and empirical validation of the capability areas and their statistical classification. The three BPMM examples regarding maturity levels in the introduction section each belong to a different 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

Total

20

26

20

26

23

23

C (BPO)

2

16

0

0

0

17

86.96% (i.e. 60/69) of cross-validated

(kappa ¼ 0.802 4 0.75; p 5 0.001)

(kappa ¼ 0.890 4 0.75; p 5 0.001)

grouped cases correctly classified.

grouped cases correctly classified.

Predicted group membership

for the stepwise method

92.75% (i.e. 64/69) of original

B (intermediate

BPO)

3

3

2

25

23

1

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • C a In cross validation, each case (i.e. BPMM) is classied by the discriminant functions derived from all cases other than that case.

A (BPM)

22

0

1

1

1

21

C (BPO)

85.51% (i.e. 59/69) of cross-validated

16

0

0

0

0

19

(kappa ¼ 0.780 4 0.75; p 5 0.001)

(kappa ¼ 0.978 4 0.75; p 5 0.001)

grouped cases correctly classified.

grouped cases correctly classified.

The classification results of discriminant analysis compared to cluster analysis.

Predicted group membership

for the regular method

98.55% (i.e. 68/69) of original

B (Intermediate

BPO)

3

2

22

26

0

1

(BPM)

4

0

0

23

1

21

A

B (intermediate BPO)

B (intermediateBPO)

(BPO)

(BPO)

  • C A(BPM)

A(BPM)

Result

Result

Count

Count

Ward’s clusters

  • Cross- validated a

Original

Table 2.

Enterprise Information Systems

207

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 208 A. Van Looy et al.

design, measurement, evaluation, strategy, roles and BPO-oriented attitudes. It thus includes one BPO-specific capability area but lacks half of the fundamental BPM capability areas. Furthermore, the other BPMMs mentioned in the introduction section are classified in the BPO cluster (C) (Harrington 1991, de Bruin and Rosemann 2007, Hammer 2007), even though (Harrington 1991) it is more on the border line with the intermediate BPO cluster. Furthermore, we recall from Section 3.2. and Appendix 2 that assessment items may literally refer to one, more or all business processes in the organisation. By taking into account this additional dimension, the BPMM classification can be further refined into nine maturity types being measured by the currently proposed BPMMs: BPM maturity for one, more or all business processes, intermediate BPO maturity for one, more or all business processes and BPO maturity for one, more or all business processes in the assessed organisation(s) or supply chain. Consequently, the BPMM classification further refines earlier findings regarding the maturity for specific or all business processes (de Bruin and Rosemann 2007). Interestingly, this classification allows evaluating the ‘maturity’ of BPMMs or the completeness of BPMMs with respect to the theoretical capability areas. Figure 5 is based on logical induction, with BPM being contained in BPO, which includes organisational aspects across business processes. Of all the maturity types identified, BPM for one business process is the least complete, whereas BPO for all business processes is the most complete. The relationships in between are less hierarchical, by indicating that completeness increases (1) from BPM over intermediate BPO to BPO and (2) from one over more to all business processes. For instance, we do not assert that BPO for one or more business processes is necessarily better than BPM for all business processes. We only emphasise that BPO models are inherently more complete than intermediate BPO

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014 208 A. Van Looy et al.

Figure 5.

The completeness of BPMMs.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems

209

Table 3.

A final BPMM classification.

 

Intermediate BPO for

BPM for all BPs (9)

all BPs (7)

BPO for all BPs (10)

BP: ARM, BIS, BPM, MAU,

BP: BPT, CAM1,

BP: CAM2, CHA,

MCC1, O&I, SKR, SMI,

DEL, FIS, HAR2,

GAR2, HAM, IDS,

SPA

ROH, RUM

ORA, REM, ROS,

 

SCH1, WIL

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,

 

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 final BPMM classification, 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, Harrington’s ‘process maturity grid’ (1991) was also classified 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.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 210 A. Van Looy et al.

The main capability areas are based on accepted definitions 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 first 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 first four main capability areas represent the characteristics of specific business processes, whereas the final two main capability areas characterise the whole portfolio of business processes within the involved organisations. All sub areas are represented 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 different maturity types being measured by the collected BPMMs. Particularly, cluster and discriminant analysis have elicited three maturity types:

. business process management (BPM) maturity, primarily focussing on business process modelling (1), deployment (2), optimisation (3) and manage- ment (4); . business process orientation (BPO) maturity, combining BPM maturity with a process-oriented culture (5) and structure (6); . intermediate BPO maturity, limiting BPO maturity to some process-oriented aspects, usually cultural (5).

BPO maturity is the most comprehensive but requires top management commitment. Alternatively, intermediate BPO maturity is also realisable by middle management. BPM maturity is more suited for team initiatives. Evidence has shown that a business process (BP) maturity type, merely centred on modelling and deployment, was not present for generic business processes. Furthermore, we added the number of business processes addressed to each BPMM type, i.e. does it concern the maturity of one, more or all business processes in the involved organisation(s)? The extended BPMM classification allows evaluating the completeness of BPMMs by arranging those nine resulting maturity types. It implies that existing BPMMs do not measure the same maturity and blindly comparing results leads to incorrect conclusions. Thereby, opportunities exist to refine many models towards more complete BPMMs. Consequently, the research gave evidence of a conceptual framework with six main capability areas and 17 capability sub areas. Together with the classified maturity types, it contributes to the grounding of BPMM literature. For instance, our conceptual framework can be translated towards a maturity theory, in which an increase in capability areas contributes to higher maturity and higher business (process) performance (see Figure 1). Future research can demonstrate which combinations of capability areas (i.e. maturity types) contribute more to performance than others. For instance, do the additional efforts of BPO maturity significantly increase business (process) performance, compared to the basic efforts of BPM maturity? Or does it depend on other variables, such as the organisation

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems

211

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 findings might be aggregated into a decision tool, which would be of practical use to managers wishing to select a BPMM. As such, organisations can find the BPMM that best fits their organisational needs, based on rational considerations. Besides these different options to further elaborate on the findings, 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.

References

AberdeenGroup, 2006. Global supply chain benchmark report [online]. Available from: https://

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, 15–20.

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), 130–137.

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), 886–898.

Aryee, G., Naim, M.M., and Lalwani, C., 2008. Supply chain integration using a maturity

scale. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19 (5), 559–575.

Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H., and Wells, R.B., 1997. A stakeholder approach to strategic

performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38 (3), 25–37.

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.

Baumo¨l, U., 2010. Cultural change in process management. In: J. vom Brocke and M.

Rosemann, eds. Handbook on business process management 2. Berlin: Springer, 487–514.

Bisnez Management, 2010. Business process management onderzoek 2009–2010 [online].

Available from: http://www.bisnez.org/ [Accessed 20 June 2010].

Bo¨hme, 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), 851–859.

Boswell, W.R., Bingham, J.B., and Colvin, A.J., 2006. Aligning employees through ‘‘line of

sight’’. Business Horizons, 49, 499–509.

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), 523–545.

Campbell, J. and Sankaran, J., 2005. An inductive framework for enhancing supply chain

integration. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (16), 3321–3351.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 212 A. Van Looy et al.

CGF, 2010. The global scorecard [online]. Available from: http://www.globalscorecard.net/

[Accessed 23 June 2010].

Champlin, B., 2008. Dimensions of business process change [online]. BPMInstitute. Available

June 2010].

Champy, J., 2002. X-Engineering the corporation. Reinventing your business in the digital age.

New York: Warner Business Books.

Chicago Consulting, 2010. Supply chain maturity. A self-assessment [online]. Available from:

http://www.chicago-consulting.com/ [Accessed 23 June 2010].

Closs, D.J. and Mollenkopf, D.A., 2004. A global supply chain framework. Industrial

Marketing Management, 33, 37–44.

Cohen, S. and Roussel, J., 2005. Strategic supply chain management. The 5 disciplines for top

performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Colvin, A.J. and Boswell, W.R., 2007. The problem of action and interest alignment: beyond

job requirements and incentive compensation. Human Resource Management Review, 17,

38–51.

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, 642–653.

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, 1–8.

DeToro, I. and McCabe, T., 1997. How to stay flexible and elude fads. Quality Progress, 30

(3), 55–60.

Doebeli, G., et al., 2011. Using BPM governance to align systems and practice. Business

Process Management Journal, 17 (2), 184–202.

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), 55–60.

Dwyer, T., 2006. BPMInstitute’s 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.fi/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, 1–4.

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), 1499–1519.

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

flat 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.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

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), 364–376.

Hammer, M., 2007. The process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85 (4), 111–123.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J., 2003. Reengineering the corporation. 2nd ed. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers.

Harmon, P., 2004. Evaluating an organization’s business process maturity. BPTrends, March,

1–11.

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].

Hu¨ffner, T., 2004. The BPM maturity model. Munich: GRIN.

IBM, 2007. The IBM global business services 2007 Mainland China value chain study [online].

cessed 23 June 2010].

IDS Scheer, 2010. BPM maturity check [online]. Available from: http://www.bpmmaturity.

com/ [Accessed 22 June 2010].

ISO/IEC, 2003. Part 2: performing an assessment. Geneva: ISO/IEC.

ISO/IEC, 2008. Part 7: assessment of organizational maturity. Geneva: ISO/IEC.

Jain, A.K., Murty, M.N., and Flynn, P.J., 1999. Data clustering: a review. ACM Computing

Surveys, 31 (3), 264–323.

Jeston, J. and Nelis, J., 2006. Business process management: practical guidelines to successful

implementations. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.

Kannengiesser, U., 2008. Subsuming the BPM life cycle in an ontological framework of

designing. CAiSE Workshop Proceedings, LNBIP 10, 31–45.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., 2001. The strategy-focused organization. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Klecka, W.R., 1980. Discriminant analysis. California: Sage Publications.

Kohlbacher, M., 2010. The effects of process orientation: a literature review. Business Process

Management Journal, 16 (1), 135–152.

Lacity, M.C. and Janson, M.A., 1994. Understanding qualitative data: a framework of text

analysis methods. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11 (2), 137–155.

Lee, R.G. and Dale, B.G., 1998. Business process management: a review and evaluation.

Business Process Management Journal, 4 (3), 214–225.

Lee, J., Lee, D., and Kang, S., 2007. An overview of the business process maturity model

(BPMM). In: K.C. Chang, W. Wang, L. Chen, C.A. Ellis, C. Hsu, A.C. Tsoi, and H.

Wang, eds. Advances in web and network technologies, and information management

APWeb/WAIM 2007 International Workshops: DBMAN 2007, WebETrends 2007, PAIS

2007 and ASWAN 2007, 16–18 June, Huang Shan, China. LNCS 4537. Berlin: Springer,

384–395.

Lee, J., Lee, D., and Kang, S., 2009. vPMM: a value based process maturity model. In: R. Lee,

G. Hu, and H. Miao, eds. Computer and information science 2009. Berlin: Springer, 193–

213.

Lockamy III, A., and McCormack, K., 2004. The development of a supply chain management

process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain

Management: An International Journal, 9 (4), 272–278.

Luyckx, F., 2007. IDS BPM roadmap assessment [online]. Available from: http://www.ids-

2010].

Magdaleno, A.M., et al., 2008. Towards collaboration maturity in business processes: an

exploratory study in oil production processes. Information Systems Management, 25, 302–

318.

Maier, A.M., Moultrie, J., and Clarkson, J.P., 2009. Developing maturity grids for assessing

organisational capabilities: practitioner guidance. In: MCD proceedings, 11–13 June 2008,

Vienna, Austria. Vienna: Management Consulting Division, 1–29.

Mathiesen, P., et al., 2011. A comparative analysis of business analysis (BA) and business

process management (BPM) capabilities. In: ECIS proceedings, Helsinki, Finland.

Helsinki: AIS Electronic Library, Aalto University, 1–12.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 214 A. Van Looy et al.

Maull, R.S., Tranfield, D.R., and Maull, W., 2003. Factors characterising the maturity of

BPR programmes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23 (6),

596–624.

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, 61–72.

McCormack, K., 2007b. Supply chain management maturity. In: K. McCormack, ed. Business

process maturity: theory and application. South Carolina: Booksurge Publishing, 73–103.

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.

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 identifies 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 firms. International Journal of Logistics:

Research and Applications, 8 (1), 1–14.

Nave, D., 2002. How to compare six sigma, lean and the theory of constraints. A framework

for choosing what’s best for your organization. Quality Progress, 73–78.

Netjes, M., Reijers, H.A., and van der Aalst, W.M., 2006. Supporting the BPM life-cycle with

FileNet. In: CAiSE workshop proceedings, 5–6 June 2006, Luxembourg. Namur: Namur

University Press, 497–508.

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, 5–8

August 2008, Tokyo, Japan. Tokyo: Gakushuin University, 956–969.

Netland, T.H., Alfnes, E., and Fauske, H., 2007. How mature is your supply chain? In:

EurOMA proceedings, 17–20 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), 166–183.

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, 22–24 June 1999, Oulu, Finland. Oulu: University of Oulu, 437–452.

Palmberg, K., 2009. Exploring process management: are there any widespread models and

definitions? The TQM Journal, 21 (2), 203–215.

Paulk, M.C., 2004. Surviving the quagmire of process models, integrated models, and

standards. In: ASQ annual quality conference proceedings, 24–27 May 2004, Toronto,

Canada. Toronto: AIS Electronic Library, ASQ, 1–8.

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), 10–32.

Punj, G. and Stewart, D.W., 1983. Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and

suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (2), 134–148.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

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, 11–14 August 2005, Omaha, Nebraska, USA. Omaha: AIS Electronic

Library, University of Nebraska, 3085–3090.

Reiter, S., et al., 2010. The phenomenon of business process management: practitioners’

emphasis. In: ECIS proceedings, 6–9 June 2010, Pretoria, South Africa. Pretoria: AIS

Electronic Library, University of Pretoria, 1–12.

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:

Rohloff, M., 2009a. Case study and maturity model for business process management

implementation. In: BPM proceedings, 8–10 September 2009, Ulm, Germany. Berlin-

Heidelberg: Springer, 128–142.

Rohloff, 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,

267–284.

Rosemann, M. and de Bruin, T., 2005. Application of a holistic model for determining BPM

maturity. BPTrends, February, 1–21.

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, 107–122.

Rummler-Brache Group, 2004. Business process management in U.S. firms 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. BPM¼business process management ¼ 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 Braba¨nder, E., 2010. The process of business process management. In: J.

vom Brocke and M. Rosemann, eds. Handbook on business process management 2. Berlin:

Springer, 239–265.

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), 96–98.

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, 215–225.

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), 44–62.

Skrinjar, R., Bosilj-Vuksic, V., Stemberger, M.I., 2008. The impact of business process

orientation on financial and non-financial performance. Business Process Management

Journal 14 (5), 738–754.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 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, 491–507.

Smith, H. and Fingar, P., 2002. Business process management: the third wave. Tampa: Meghan-

Kiffer Press.

Smith, H. and Fingar, P., 2004. Process management maturity models. BPTrends, July, 1–5.

Spanyi, A., 2004a. Beyond process maturity to process competence. BPTrends, June, 1–5.

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),

221–232.

Stevens, G.C., 1989. Integrating the supply chain. International Journal of Physical

Distribution & Logistics Management, 19 (8), 3–8.

Supply-Chain Council, 2008. Supply-chain operations reference-model. SCOR overview

version 9.0 [online]. Available from: http://supply-chain.org/about/scor [Accessed 14

June 2010].

Tapia, R.S., et al., 2008. Towards a business-IT alignment maturity model for collaborative

networked organizations. In: EDOC Workshop Proceedings Conference, 15–19 September

2008, Munich, Germany. Munich: IEEE, 276–287.

Tolsma, J. and de Wit, D., 2009. Effectief Procesmanagement. Delft: Eburon.

Towers, S., 2009. 8 Omega ORCA [online]. Available from: http://www.slideshare.net/stowers/

orca-overview [Accessed 20 June 2010].

Trkman, P., 2010. The critical success factors of business process management. International

Journal of Information Management, 30, 125–134.

van den Bergh, J., 2010. Supply chain maturity scan [online]. Available from: http://www.

jvdbconsulting.com/ [Accessed 23 June 2010].

Van Looy, A., De Backer, M., and Poels, G., 2011. Defining business process maturity. A

journey towards excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20 (11),

1119–1137.

VICS, 2004. Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR). An overview

[online]. Available from://www.vics.org/ [Accessed 14 June 2010].

vom Brocke, J. and Rosemann, M., 2010. Foreword. In: J. vom Brocke and M. Rosemann,

eds. Handbook on business process management 2. Berlin: Springer, vii–ix.

vom Brocke, J. and Sinnl, T., 2011. Culture in business process management: a literature

review. Business Process Management Journal, 17 (2), 357–377.

Waterman, J.R., Peters, T.J., and Phillips, J.R., 1980. Structure is not organization. Business

Horizons, 23 (3), 14–26.

Weske, M., 2007. Business process management: concepts, languages and architectures. Berlin:

Springer.

Willaert, P., et al., 2007. The process-oriented organisation: a holistic view. In: G. Alonso, P.

Dadam, and M. Rosemann, eds. Business process management. 5th international

conference, BPM 2007, 24–28 September 2007, Brisbane, Australia. LNCS 4714. Berlin:

Springer, 1–15.

Wognum, P.M. and Faber, E.C., 2002. Infrastructures for collaboration in virtual

organisations. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations. 1 (1), 32–54.

Yaibuathet, K., Enkawa, T., and Suzuki, S., 2008. Influences of institutional environment

toward the development of supply chain management. International Journal Production

Economics, 115, 262–271.

Zairi, M., 1997. Business process management: a bounderyless approach to modern com-

petitiveness. Business Process Management Journal, 3 (1), 64–80.

zur Muehlen, M., and Ho, D.T.-Y., 2006. Risk management in the BPM lifecycle. In: C.J.

Bussler, A. Haller, eds. BPM 2005 international workshops, BPI, BPD, ENEI, BPRM,

WSCOBPM, BPS. 5 September 2005, Nancy, France. LNCS 3812. Berlin: Springer, 454–

466.

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems

Appendix 1.

The collected BPMMs (N ¼ 69)

217

ID

Author(s)

BPMM name

Reference(s)

(1) Business process (1.1) Academic

 

AOU Aouad, Cooper, Hinks,

Co-maturation model for

Aouad et al. 1998, 1999

 

Kagioglou and Sexton

synchronising BP and IT

ARM Armistead, Machin and Pritchard BPM’s degree of progress (as part of a larger survey)

Armistead and Machin 1997, Pritchard and Armistead

1999

DET

DeToro and McCabe

Process condition rating model

DeToro and McCabe 1997

HAM

Hammer

Process and Enterprise Maturity

Hammer 2007

HAR1

Harrington

Model (PEMM) Process maturity grid

Harrington 1991, 2006

LEE

Lee, Lee and Kang

Value-based process maturity

Lee et al. 2007, 2009

MAU

Maull, Tranfield and Maull

model (vPMM) BPR maturity model

Maull et al. 2003

MCC1

McCormack and Johnson

BPO maturity model

McCormack and Johnson 2001, McCormack 2007a

ROH

Rohloff

Process management maturity assessment (PMMA)

Rohloff 2009a,b

ROS

Rosemann, de Bruin and Power

BPM maturity model

de Bruin and Rosemann 2007, Hu¨ffner 2004,

 

Rosemann and de Bruin

2005

SEI

SEI, Software Engineering Institute (Carnegie Mellon University)

. Capability maturity model integration (CMMI) . Standard CMMI appraisal

SEI 2006a,b, 2007, 2009

SKR

Skrinjar, Bosilj-Vuksic, Stemberger and Hernaus

method for process improvement (SCAMPI) BPO maturity model

Skrinjar et al. 2008

WIL

Willaert, Van den Bergh, Willems and Deschoolmeester

Holistic BPO maturity framework

Willaert et al. 2007

(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

CAM1

Group)

assessment) Process-based management loop:

Dowdle et al. 2005

CAM2

CAM-I, Consortium for Advanced Management- International

CAM-I, Consortium for Advanced Management- International

. discipline model (organisation’s current philosophy, business model, methods and tools) . process-based management assessment model (components) . process continuum model (levels) Process-based management assessment and implementation road map

Dowdle and Stevens 2007

CHA

Champlin (ABPMP)

Process management maturity

Champlin 2008

DEL

Deloitte and Utrecht University

model 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)

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 218 A. Van Looy et al.

Appendix 1.

(Continued).

ID

Author(s)

BPMM name

Reference(s)

FIS

Fisher (BearingPoint)

. FAA-iCMM appraisal method (FAM) Business process maturity model

Fisher 2004

GAR1

Gardner

Process improvement road map

Gardner 2004

GAR2

Gartner

BPM maturity and adoption model

Melenovsky and Sinur 2006

HAR2

Harmon (BPTrends)

Informal BP maturity evaluation

Harmon 2004

IDS

IDS Scheer, Software AG

model

IDS Scheer 2010, Luyckx

ISO

ISO/IEC, International Organisation for Standardisation and International Electrotechnical Commission

. BPM maturity check . BPM road map assessment ISO/IEC 15504

2007, Scheer and Brabaender 2009 ISO/IEC 2003, 2008

O&I

O&i

BPM scan O&i 2010, Tolsma and de Wit

 

2009

OMG

OMG, Object Management

Business process maturity model

OMG 2008

ORA

Group Oracle and BEA Systems

(BPMM) 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 model (PMMM)

Smith and Fingar 2004

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

Bo¨hme and Childerhouse

SC integration evaluation tool and maturity model

Bo¨hme 2008

CAM3

Campbell and Sankaran

SC integration enhancement

Campbell and Sankaran 2005

MCC2

McCormack et al.

framework (SCIEF) SC management maturity model

Lockamy III and

MCL

McLaren

Web-enabled SC integration measurement model

McCormack 2004, McCormack 2007b McClaren 2006

MIC

Michigan State University

21 st Century Logistics Framework

Closs and Mollenkopf 2004, Mollenkopf and Dapiran

 

2005

NET

Netland, Alfnes and Fauske

SC maturity assessment test

Netland et al. 2007, Netland

RIV

Riverola

(SCMAT) SC management – Technology

and Alfnes 2008 Riverola 2001

TOK

Tokyo Institute of Technology

maturity model Logistics scorecard (LSC)

Enkawa 2005, Yaibuathet et al. 2008

(2.2) Non-academic

 

ABE

AberdeenGroup

Global SC maturity framework

SC management maturity model

AberdeenGroup 2006

AND

Andersen Consulting (Accenture)

SC continuum

Anderson and Lee 2000

CGF

CGF, Consumer Goods Forum

Global scorecard for efficient

CGF 2010

CGR

(former GCI, Global Commerce Initiative) CGR Management Consulting

consumer response capability

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 University

. SC maturity model (until 2006) . Ten SC competencies (as from

2007)

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

Enterprise Information Systems

219

Appendix 1.

(Continued).

ID

Author(s)

BPMM name

Reference(s)

EKN

eKNOWtion

SC maturity monitor (SCM 2 )

eKNOWtion 2009

IBM

IBM

SC maturity model

IBM 2007

JER

Jeroen van den Bergh Consulting and VU University Amsterdam

SC maturity scan

van den Bergh 2010

LMI

LMI Research Institute

GAIA SC sustainability maturity

Boone et al. 2009

MAN

Manugistics and JDA Software

model SC Compass

Holmes 1997

PMG

PMG and PRTM

SC maturity model

Cohen and Roussel 2005

SCC

SCC, Supply Chain Council and APQC

SCORmark Survey (for benchmarking, resulting in an improvement road map)

APQC 2007, Supply-Chain Council 2008

SCH2

Schoenfeldt

SC mgt maturity model

Schoenfeldt 2008

STE

Stevens

SC integration model

Stevens 1989

(3) Collaboration

 

(3.1) Academic

FRA

Fraser, Farrukh and Gregory

Collaboration maturity grid (for

Fraser et al. 2003

MAG

Magdaleno, Cappelli, Baiao, Santoro and Araujo

new product introduction and development) Collaboration maturity model (ColabMM)

Magdaleno et al. 2008

RAM

Ramasubbu and Krishnan

Process maturity framework for

Ramasubbu and Krishnan

 

managing distributed software product development

2005

SIM

Simatupang and Sridharan

SC Collaboration index

Simatupang and Sridharan

 

2005

TAP

Tapia, Daneva, vanEck and Wieringa

IT-enabled collaborative networked organisations maturity model (ICoNOs MM)

Tapia et al. 2008

WOG

Wognum and Faber

Fast reactive extended enterprise

Wognum and Faber 2002

(3.2) Non-academic

 

– capability assessment framework (FREE-CAF)

ESI2

ESI, European Software Institute

Enterprise Collaboration Maturity Model

de Soria et al. 2009

VIC

Voluntary Interindustry

Collaborative planning,

VICS 2004

Commerce Standards

forecasting and replenishment (CPFR) rollout readiness self- assessment

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

  • 220 A. Van Looy et al.

Appendix 2.

The mapping of BPMMs

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 More

0

0

 

ARM

1

  • 1 1

  • 1 All

1

1

DET

0

  • 0 1

 
  • 0 One

0

0

HAM

1

 
  • 1 1

 

1

  • 1 One/All

1

HAR1

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 One

0

LEE

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

1

MAU

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

MCC1

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

ROH

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

ROS

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

SEI

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

0

SKR

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

WIL

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

BIS

1

  • 1 1

0

  • 1 All

1

BPM

1

  • 1 1

0

  • 1 All

1

BPT

0

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

CAM1

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

CAM2

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

CHA

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 One/All

1

DEL

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

ESI1

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

0

FAA

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

0

FIS

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

GAR1

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 One

1

GAR2

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

HAR2

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

IDS

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

ISO

1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

0

0

O&I

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

OMG

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

1

ORA

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

REM

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

RUM

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

SAP

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 One

0

SCH1

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

1

SMI

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

SPA

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 All

0

ARY

0

  • 1 0

1

  • 1 More

1

BOH

0

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

1

CAM3

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

1

MCC2

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

1

MCL

0

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

0

0

MIC

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

1

NET

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

0

RIV

1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

0

0

TOK

1

  • 1 1

1

  • 1 More

0

ABE

0

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

0

0

         
 

(continued)

Downloaded by [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia] at 07:08 25 September 2014

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 More

0

 

CGF

CGR

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

1

  • 1 More

1

CHI

CSC

 
  • 0 1

  • 0 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

0

  • 1 More

0

EKN

 
  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

0

IBM

  • 1 1

  • 1 0

  • 1 More

0

JER

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

 
  • 1 More

0

LMI

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

1

MAN

  • 1 1

  • 1 0

  • 1 More

0

PMG

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

1

SCC

 
  • 0 1

  • 1 0

 
  • 0 More

0

SCH2

  • 0 1

  • 1 1

   
  • 1 More

0

STE

 
  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 More

1

FRA

MAG

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 1

  • 1 1