Process Maturity Models as Tools for Organisation ...

Process Maturity Models as Tools for

Organisation Improvement and Development

Renata BRAJER-MARCZAK

Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Wroclaw, Poland, renata.brajer-

[email protected]

Alicja GĘBCZYŃSKA

WSB University in Wroclaw, Poland, [email protected]

Abstract

The development of an organisation is inevitable, especially taking into account the challenges and

requirements that contemporary organisations face. Hyper-competition, virtualization, development

of new technologies, decreasing life cycles of products and the dynamics of customers’ expectations

force organisations to search for tools that will enable them to develop in an orderly, balanced way.

This is because the acceleration of the pace of development requires that organisations deal with

many problems. Undoubtedly, the business models of process maturity can be regarded as a tool for

improvement and development of an organization. Such models, apart from describing particular

levels of maturity, allow to focus the development of an organisation on better process results on the

one hand and on the other hand on increasing the efficiency of entire organisations. The aim of this

article is to contribute to the BPM theory by presenting a wider perspective of business process

maturity models as a tool for organisational improvement and development, particularly in relation to

the functions performed by the models of process maturity and the impact of the use of these models

on the development of an organisation.

Keywords: Business Process Orientation (BPO), Process Maturity Of The Organisation, Business

Process Maturity Models (BPMM), Organisation Development, Improvement

Introduction

It is inevitable that each organisation undergoes a development process, especially considering both

the challenges and requirements that contemporary organisations must face. Hypercompetition,

virtualisation, evolution of modern technologies, product lifecycles becoming shorter and shorter as

well as the dynamics of customer expectations force organisations to develop continuously. The

foregoing applies not only to businesses, but also to public institutions and other organisations.. The

growing development momentum forces organisations to tackle a multitude of problems.

Consequently, it is recommended that each organisation assumes a specific development pace, which

conforms with the concept of increasing the maturity of its processes. Following the idea that an

organisation is only as efficient as its processes are (Rummler, Brache, 2000, p. 76), one can claim

that the pursuit of process maturity corresponds to the organisation’s growth-related needs, while

process maturity models may be perceived as process improvement and organisation development

tools. There is a number of publications representing the literature of the subject elaborating upon the

way in which process maturity models function (Rosemann and de Bruin, 2005; de Bruin 2007,

Hammer, 2007; McCormack and Johnson, 2001; Lockamy and McCormack, 2004; OMG, 2008;

Zwicker, Fettke and Loos, 2010; Röglinger et al., 2012; Kohlegger et al., 2009), but most of them

present the relevant models with reference to the potential for increasing process maturity. However,

not all business process maturity models take the broader perspective of an organisation into account,

as some of them only make it possible to establish process maturity of a single process or a set of

processes used to perform certain functions, instead of that of a set of interlinked processes (Dijkman

et al., 2016, p. 720). The criticism towards maturity models often pertains to the fact that they

disregard the business results of the processes being improved. Many of models not only describe

Education Excellence and Innovation Management: A 2025 Vision to Sustain Economic Development during Global Challenges

10260

Pobrano z https://wir.ue.wroc.pl / Downloaded from Repository of Wroclaw University of Economics and Business 2021-12-14

Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

individual levels of process maturity, but also constitute records of the knowledge about the way to

implement high-performing and efficient processes. They should basically also enable the

organisation’s development to be oriented towards increased efficiency of processes as well as of

entire organisations.

In summary the above elaborations one may arrive at a conclusion that many of the available studies

focus on presenting the essence of how business process maturity models are built as well as their

characteristics mainly from the perspective of the potential for increasing process maturity, while

perceiving process maturity models as tools for organisational development represents a separate

approach to the matter of their application. The article was conceived to fill a knowledge gap in this

respect, highlighting that the demand for business process maturity models is far more extensive than

that which stems from the BPM related needs. The purpose of the article is contribute to the

development of the BPM theory by presenting a wider perspective of business process maturity

models perceived as tools for organisation improvement and development. In order to fulfil the pre-

assumed goals of the publication, the following research objectives were assumed:

1. Interpretation of the notions of process maturity and organisation development.

2. Review of selected business process maturity models from the perspective of their

contribution to organisation development.

3. Identification of the relationship between the application of business process maturity

models and organisation development.

Individual parts of the publication address the above problems, and the article itself comprises

structurally interlinked sections. In the first one, based on the review of the literature of the subject,

the notions of process maturity and organisation development have been defined. What follows is an

analysis of the problem of business process maturity models, highlighting the functions they perform

in terms of developing the business process orientation in organisations. By analysing the

opportunities created by their use, the relevant research gap has been identified, and it has been

concluded that they can be applied much more extensively than in the BPM sphere only. The research

methodology has been described in further paragraphs. The results and discussion section proposes to

perceive business process maturity models as organisation development and improvement tools. The

article closes with the conclusions stemming from the research in question and the elaborations

provided.

Background

According to Kohlbacher and Reijers (2013), the relevant aspects of process maturity comprise

process documentation, involvement of the management, process ownership, process measuring and

monitoring as well as methods and techniques of continuous process improvement and the

organisation’s culture and structure.

Increasing process maturity has become one of priorities in the development of numerous

organisations. One can also perceive it as a form of development. Both development and

improvement of process maturity consist in transition from less desirable states, considered less

effective, to more desirable states, considered better and more efficient from the perspective of a pre-

defined criterion or set of criteria. Having assumed such an approach, every future state is regarded as

better than a past state. On the basic level, it typically corresponds to developing the awareness of

processes being implemented within an organisation. On a higher level, process identification and

documentation appear. An impulse for further changes is the willingness to control processes and to

seek to improve them. With the highest level of process maturity comes the need for defining links

and correlations between interfunctional processes as well as for identifying and building

relationships with suppliers and customers. In order to enter the level of process optimisation,

organisations are required to deploy specific mechanisms for control of entire value chains

encompassing business partners and customers. Another level of process maturity should be

accompanied by the growing process capacity to accomplish the pre-assumed goals, which is

reflected by efficient strategy implementation and improved quality of products and/or services.

Entering the higher level of process maturity should trigger improved control of process deliverables,


10261


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

more accurate forecasting of goals, costs and effectiveness, improved efficiency in pursuing pre-

defined goals and increased capability of organisations to plan and implement organisational changes

(Lockamy, McCormack, 2004).

Organisations can pursue development by introducing many internal changes which may lead to

better economic results, improved customer satisfaction, as well as higher quality of the products

and/or services delivered. From the business’s point of view, it may apply to either one of its parts or

to its entirety, to all or to one of its operating areas, e.g. goals, structure, technology or human

resources, but it may also concern the processes being deployed. Many contemporary concepts place

emphasis on sustainable development by taking needs of different stakeholders into consideration.

Unlike growth, which mainly pertains to quantitative changes, the notion of development also

encompasses changes of qualitative nature. Development is not only about increasing the scale of

activity, but also about other aspects of operations, including improvement of the quality of products

or services delivered.

Development as such is primarily assumed to prevent exclusion from the market and to increase

competitiveness, while sometimes it results from the organisation’s natural needs. Development

should proceed according to pre-established rules and deliver intended effects, typically better than

those achieved before. Therefore, the changes one faces in this respect should be intentional in

nature. Development is also essentially a long-term phenomenon, as it proceeds gradually and

emerges as a result of consecutive changes being introduced. In order to make changes possible,

organisations must surmount the strong urge towards stabilisation (Hammer, Champy, 1993, p. 23).

There are three distinctive approaches to the research of organisation development addressed in the

literature of the subject (McKelvie, Wiklund, 2010, p. 277). The most extensive of these approaches

considers development as a dependent variable and research activity as a means to explain the factors

conditioning development. Another approach focuses on results of development, and development is

perceived as an independent variable. The research activity concentrates on the changes that take

place in an organisation as a consequence of its development, and individual stages of development

as well as the organisation lifecycles are taken into consideration. In line with this approach,

organisations develop gradually, going through different phases. The third approach in question

perceives development as a process, stressing the manner in which organisations develop, and

particularly what happens to them while they develop.

Business Process Maturity Models (BPMM)

A review of the available literature of the subject implies that there is no single and commonly

acceptable definition of a business process maturity models. It may be generally described as a set of

recommendations and good practices used in the pursuit of efficiency in implementation of processes.

They reflect the evolutionary path of development which enables organisations to move from the

condition of having deployed incoherent and non-interlinked processes to processes that are

structured, monitored, managed and improved. Pullen (2007, p. 11) suggests that it is also an

“organised set of elements which describes the characteristics of efficient processes at different stages

of development. It also highlights points which delimit individual stages and indicates methods

making it possible to move from one level to another.” Business Process Maturity Models (BPMM)

can be applied to measure efficiency and maturity of:

• specific business processes, and

• maturity of overall business process management, i.e. of all business processes deployed in

the organisation (Rosemann and de Bruin, 2005; de Bruin 2007, Hammer, 2007;

McCormack and Johnson, 2001; Lockamy and McCormack, 2004; OMG, 2008; Zwicker,

Fettke and Loos, 2010; Röglinger et al. 2012).

M. Kohlegger, R. Maier and S. Thalmann (2009, p. 54) claim that, in conceptual terms, business

process maturity models represent qualitative or quantitative stages of growing capacity of the

model’s components to perform the tasks assigned for purposes of their assessment in pre-defined

areas. This definition does not fully reflect the very essence of maturity models, as it only focuses on

the diagnosis of the current state of matters, while there are numerous other functions these models


10262


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

perform as well. An analysis of the available literature implies that one can distinguish between the

main functions performed by process maturity models:

1. Diagnostic function which enables identification of the organisation’s current weaknesses

and comparing them with other parties.

2. Development function which orients organisations towards their further development

compared to the pre-assumed improvement plan. With reference to the current level of

process maturity, one can establish specific measures aimed at reaching a higher level.

3. Decision-making function which helps in establishing action priorities conditioning the

decisions being made.

4. Evaluating function. Models make it possible to evaluate the improvement of the results

achieved as time passes, and therefore they can be used as a means to monitor the changes

taking place within the organisation, oriented towards the pursuit of excellence.

5. Comparative function. Models enable a comparative analysis to be conducted inside

organisations, industries and even countries (Rosemann, de Bruin, 2005, pp. 3-4).

According to P. Cronemyr and M. Danielsson (2013), organisations need business process maturity

models because the latter help them reduce the risk of failure in process management and match

individual process changes with the time and the budget in disposal, orienting the transition to higher

levels of maturity towards an increase in product quality, assuming that more efficient processes

ensure higher product quality. What followed the evolution of the process approach was further

maturity models.

The very pillar of business process maturity models is the phase model of development and use of

information systems conceived by Nolan who created the stages of growth theory in the early 1970’s

(Nolan, Gibson, 1974). Some inspirations to create these models can also be tracked to Maslow’s

motivation model (1954) and Kuznets’s theory of economic growth created in 1965 (Gabryelczyk,

2016). It is commonly believed that the first properly structured maturity model oriented towards

quality maturity of businesses is the Quality Management Maturity Grid developed by Ph. Crosby at

the end of the 1970’s (Mullaly, 2014). It gave rise to a wave of maturity models being developed in

different areas of organisations, including those dedicated to process management. Crosby’s concept

is considered to be the starting point for preparation of the first process maturity assessment model

referred to as the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) by the Carnegie Mellon University Software

Engineering Institute (Gibson, Goldenson, Kost, 2006; SEI, 2006). The key maturity models

originating from this trend are the Business Process Management Maturity Model (Rosemann, de

Bruin, 2005; Rosemann et al., 2006), the Business Process Orientation Maturity Model (McCormack,

Johnson, 2001), the Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (Hammer, 2007), the Business Process

Maturity Model (OMG, 2008) and the Process Maturity Ladder (Harmon, 2007).

In an attempt to group the existing business process maturity models, the following four sets can be

formed (compare Aukszol, Chomuszko 2012, p. 42):

• models based on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) designed by the Software

Engineering Institute. It was originally used for purposes of enterprise computerisation

responding to the frequent failures of IT projects in an attempt to satisfy the need for better

choice of software providers. Further versions more appropriately adjusted to other

organisation areas sprang from this model as time passed. It is now referred to as the CMMI

(Capability Maturity Model Integration), and it is integrated in nature;

• Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM), developed in 2002 by the Object Management

Group (OMG) association. To a large extent, it is inspired by the CMMI model, however, it

is more extensive in terms of the range of applications. According to its authors, the BPMM

can be used as the main process structure or as an add-on to other models or sets of good

practices, such as COBIT-2000, ITIL, ISO 9000, where it is applied for purposes of maturity

assessment and improvement;

• industry-specific models, often inspired by the CMMI or BPMM models, precisely

addressing the needs of a specific industry or area of operations. An example of this group is


10263


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

the IT Architecture Capability Maturity Model which focuses exclusively on objective

assessment of all processes related to the architecture of information processing systems;

• more general organisation models comprising certain elements of maturity. One of them is

the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), containing a separate part

connected with process maturity referred to as the Process Maturity Framework (PMF).

What one creates in some of these models is a detailed description of a process maturity

assessment procedure, which is the case of the Six Sigma method-based model, for instance.

The study of the literature of the subject supports the finding that one of the most highly developed

business process maturity models applicable to both process improvement and development of

process-oriented organisations is the OMG Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) developed in

2002 by Object Management Group (Raschke et al. 2010). It describes processes against the context

of an entire organisation, assuming that improvement of processes leads to improvement of the whole

organisation, and the improved processes cannot be sustained if the organisation is not mature enough

to do so. It also presents an evolutionary path of development which allows organisations to make a

transition from the level of incoherent and uncoordinated business operations to the level of

structured and continuously improved processes. Therefore the BPMM is not only a tool used to

determine the process development level, but also a methodology supporting development of

organisations in a broader perspective. This model supports learning of organisations, enables

innovative improvements and helps them to avoid mistakes in various areas (Röglinger et al., 2012, p.

330).

Compared to other business process maturity models, the one devised by Rummler and Brache

(2004) clearly stands out, as it is based on the assumption that every organisation is a system, and that

the diverse processes it has implemented span various areas of the organisation. It places special

emphasis on the necessity to correlate the actions undertaken across the organisation (coordination of

goals and methods for designing and managing on three levels: organisation, process and position)

and to eliminate the problems emerging in the sphere of functional interconnections for the sake of

improved efficiency of the whole organisation (Rummler, Brache, 2000, p. 46). The process

management level assessment conducted under this model uses the Process Performance Index (PPI)

(Rummler-Brache Group, 2004). The model comprises 10 success measures which – according to its

authors – exert a significant impact on the organisation’s capability to implement the process

management methodology. A significant advantage of the perspective assumed in the model is that

all improving actions are initiated on the basis of a pre-defined strategy, and this solution ensures that

development proceeds consistently and in line with the long-term vision of operations. This approach

removes the need to optimise a certain area of operations without taking into account the final

consequences for the functioning of the entire organisation. The comprehensive approach postulated

in the Rummler-Brache model creates an opportunity to assess an organisation more extensively, not

only focusing on its inside, but also with regard to its relationships with the environment, the analysis

of which provides a premise for launching adaptive actions.

Another model based on the CMM and CMMI concepts is the BPTrends Pyramid proposed by P.

Harmon, describing a model organisation featuring mature processes and determining the

organisation’s capacity to improve processes (bptrends.com). This model pertains to three levels:

enterprise, process and implementation. On the enterprise level, strategic goals are matched with

those of business processes, performance indicators are defined for the entire organisation, and then

they are adjusted to match the value chain and the key processes. Consequently, one may claim that

the actions undertaken on the enterprise level include establishing the process management system

and planning the ways to recognise all the organisation’s needs with regard to implementation of

individual processes as well as setting priorities and planning actions intended to enable their

improvement.

Although the models addressed in the study were created for purposes of process management, their

underlying logic should be applicable in other areas of the operations performed by organisations. An

important aspect of the problem should be the use of maturity models in a broader context, namely as

an integral part of maturity assessment of entire organisations (Dijkman et al., 2016 p. 719) against


10264


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

the assumption that the more mature the organisation, the higher the capacity of the processes it has

implemented, leading to improved product quality and business results.

BPMM are not free from deficiencies, and they have inherent limitations, such as oversimplification

of the reality, an implication that there is but one way to act in all organisations, as well as

disregarding the internal and external conditions in which organisations function (compare Röglinger

et al., 2012). The use of these models is also exposed to a certain risk of failure which becomes

imminent when one rigidly adheres to the model provisions without flexibly adapting to current

requirements and the given organisation’s practice (Kania, 2011, p. 83). Moreover, there are many

cases when consulting companies make an excessive display of the advantages the said models offer

as well as the need to apply them, promising the potential benefits overly optimistically. Maturity

models prove particularly useful for organisations initiating formalised process management, as they

make it easier to identify the current state of matters and ensure sufficient motivation to act, while at

the same time they suggest the best practices to be applied. The fact the organisation has

implemented one of the models is not always tantamount to its genuine development. Much depends

on the model type and the extent to which it is actually utilised. Many of them provide development-

related recommendations, which does not automatically mean that they will be put into practice. The

concept underlying BPMM is based on the assumption that the more mature the organisation, the

higher the capacity of the processes it has implemented in the pursuit of its pre-defined goals, leading

to improved product quality and maximised business results.

In conclusion, one may claim that business process maturity models are intended to channel

organisation’s development towards top process efficiency without compromising results of entire

organisations, therefore the perspective of using the models may extend far beyond that of the BPM

related needs exclusively, and so that can also find their practical application in the sphere of

organisation improvement and development. The above conclusion points at the knowledge gap

which consists in the insufficient exploration of the opportunities to make use of business process

maturity models for the sake of organisation development.

Research Methods

This publication is essentially an overall review of the problems in question, and consequently the

research process primarily consisted in studies of the literature of the subject and proceeded

according to the phases summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Research process

Phase Activity Effect

Initial preparation for

the literature review

Adoption of search criteria. Selection of search terms

Identification of journals,

choosing key words

Conducting the

literature review

Searching databases, i.e.

Emerald, EBSCO, Google

Scholar

Selection of the most relevant

publications

Review of titles and abstracts

of selected papers

Evaluation of full texts of

selected papers

Analysis of compact library

resources

Selection of publications covered by

detailed analysis

Compilation of the text Critical analysis of selected

publications that meet the

adopted criteria

Synthesis of the results in the

context of the issues raised

Identification of the gap in

knowledge

Source: Own study


10265


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

In the first stage of the research work, specific search criteria were defined and key words selected,

including business process maturity model and organisation development, used to browse through

databases. The constraint applied was that the databases were only investigated in search for articles

spanning the last 15 years (2003-2018). Analysing titles, abstracts and key words, individual articles

were picked as those assumed to be matching the problems in question best, and then they were pre-

selected. This step was complemented with an analysis of publications available in libraries and

internet resources, including books and other scientific papers. By these efforts, it was possible to

select the publications to be analysed in detail, and so among the initially chosen 45 publications, 18

were eventually subject to critical analysis. The papers which had met the assumed criteria were

extensively analysed in the pursuit of the knowledge gap. Consequently, the final stage of the

research work enabled a synthesis of the results thus obtained, providing sufficient grounds to define

the knowledge gap and formulate conclusions with reference to the literature review.

Results and Discussion

The functions performed by business process maturity models, as described in the literature review,

confirm their notable impact on the organisation development, and this implies that the models can be

used as organisation improvement and development tools.

Business process maturity models form a pattern of gradual evolution of organisations, which is why

they are also referred to as “stages of development”, “stage models” or “stage theories” (Plomp,

Batenburg, 2010). Using them is, one the one hand, an attempt to tackle the problem of organisational

excellence in a holistic manner, and on the other hand, they are tools dedicated to managers and

intended for improvement of management (compare Haffer, 2011, p. 37). Once deployed, they enable

systematic assessment and improvement of process skills and competencies needed by the

organisation to attain high efficiency (Van Looy et al., 2011). This corresponds well with a statement

that BPM has become a discipline that can be used to improve the entire range of organisational

activities (Harnaus et al., 2016).

Based on literature studies, Dijkman et al. have compared several business process maturity models

from the perspective of their relationship with organisational performance. Table 2 provides

references to individual studies, the models applied and the researchers who managed to observe the

said relationships.

Table 2: Relationship between maturity and organisational performance

Study Research method Maturity model Confirmed relations

Jiang et al. (2004) Survey

(154 respondents)

CMM Improved learning

Improved control

Improved product quality

and productivity

Improved communication

Improved flexibility

Lockamy III and

McCormack (2004)

Survey

(523 respondents)

SCM Maturity Improved overall

performance of the supply

chain management (SCM)

function

Raschke and

Ingraham (2010)

Survey

(356 respondents)

BPMM Improved overall

performance of the

purchasing and order

fulfilment functions

Jung and

Goldenson (2003)

Secondary data

(752 units)

CMM Improved ability to meet

schedule and budget

Filbeck et al.

(2013)

Secondary data

(348 units)

CMM Improved stock

performance

Source: based on Dijkman et al., (2015, p. 721).


10266


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

Drawing generalised conclusions from the aforementioned studies, one may claim that there is

evidence to support the assumption that using certain business process maturity models generally

improves the organisation’s efficiency and contributes to its development.

Despite the limitations stemming from the design of the models as well as the fact that, to a large

extent, they disregard alternative paths of development, which leads to simplification of the

organisational reality, one may claim that they can be successfully used as organisation improvement

and development tools. It is so because they are sources of knowledge about the performance and

efficiency of process implementation. Using a more efficient method of process management is the

means to ensure regularity and repeatability of the actions undertaken. For this reason, it should

contribute to improving the organisation’s efficiency and development. Implementation of business

process maturity models involves the organisation’s pursuit of development of its relationships with

customers, organisational flexibility as well as development of the coordination system. They allow

the organisation to develop in a more structured manner and to introduce changes which will not be

incidental. Attaining a certain level of iterativeness is both desirable and reasonable, but in order for

such efforts to ensure organisation development, they must be undertaken in the operating as well as

the strategic dimension. Therefore, one should seek to improve the functioning of the organisation as

a system coexisting in a specific environment. Using business process maturity models cannot be

limited to the mere improvement of individual processes without evaluating their impact on other

elements. However, it should be stressed that business process maturity models must not be used

without reflection and a dose of criticism. What they require of managers is that they use them

efficiently, aware of the existing limitations and in combination with other approaches which place

more emphasis on elements disregarded in a specific model.

Conclusion

The elaboration provided in the article is based on the assumption that business process maturity

models can be used as organisation development tools. The authors have referred not only to selected

models, considered relevant for the very reason that they enable a wider perspective of assessment to

be adopted and are not limited to the process dimension, but mainly because of their impact on the

functioning of entire organisations. The positive correlation between using business process maturity

models and organisation development will be more evident if the application of the former stems

from firm conviction of top managers and relates to the strategic goals adopted by the organisation.

However, it should be emphasised that transformation of strategic goals into development goals,

reorienting operations towards an increase of process maturity, requires numerous measures and

financial resources to be involved (compare Kihn, 2010).

Upon transition from a lower to a higher level of maturity, one should first expect the improvement to

take place in the sphere of the processes themselves, then in the business areas (divisions) where

individual processes have been implemented, and finally across the entire organisation. Attaining the

above positive results is not unconditional, since the model application itself is no guarantee of

success. The model is but a tool which – when used properly – provides the organisation with

opportunities to develop. And in order to use it correctly, one must first establish how advanced the

process management is as well as keep improving the solutions already deployed. When claiming

successive levels, one must not lose sight of sustainable development of the entire organisation as

well as synergetic operation which generally ensures optimised effects. The fact that the organisation

has advanced to a higher level not always entails sustainable development. Focusing on

fragmentation in terms of improvement of the given area without analysing its impact on other

elements is a rather risky endeavour which by no means guarantees that positive long-term results

will be achieved. Another important realisation concerns the fact that it takes time as well as

involvement of the top management to succeed in introducing any change whatsoever.


10267


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

Limitations

This article has its limitations, which basically boil down to its specific nature as an overall review

based on studies of the literature of the subject. Bearing the foregoing in mind, future research should

seek to empirically confirm the theoretically confirmed relationship between the use of business

process maturity models and the development of an organisation perceived holistically as a system or

with regard to its individual elements.

Acknowledgment

The paper has been realized in the scope of the project is financed by the Ministry of Science and

Higher Education in Poland under the programme "Regional Initiative of Excellence" 2019 - 2022

project number 015/RID/2018/19 total funding amount 10 721 040,00 PLN".

References

• Cronemyr, P. & Danielsson, M. (2013), “Process Management 1-2-3- a maturity model and

diagnostics tool”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(7-8), 933-944

• de Bruin, T. (2007), Insights into the Evolution of BPM in Organisations, Proceedings of the 18

th Australia Conference on Information systems, Toowoomba.

• Dijkman, R., Lammers, S.V. & de Jong, A. (2016), “Properties that influence business process

management maturity and its effect on organizational performance”, Information Systems Frontiers, August, 18(4), 717-734, Springer, DOI 10.1007/s10796-015-9554-5.

• Gabryelczyk, R. (2016), “Does Grade Level Matter for the Assessment of Business Process

Management Maturity?”, NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO OUR ECONOMY, 62(2), 3-11. DOI:

10.1515/ngoe-2016-0007

• Gibson, D.L., Dennis, R. & Goldenson, K. (2006), Performance Results of CMMI®-Based Process Improvement, Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Retrieved from

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/ 06tr004.pdf

• Haffer, R. (2011), Samoocena i pomiar wyników działalności w systemach zarządzania przedsiębiorstw, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń.

• Hammer, M. (2007), “The Process Audit”, HBR, April, 1-14.

• Hammer, M. & Chempy, J. (1993), Reenginering the Corporation. A Manifestofor Business Revolution, Harper Collins, New York.

• Harmon, P. (2007), Business Process Change, Morgan Kaufmann.

• Hernaus, T., Bosilj- Vuksic, V. & Stemberger, M. (2016), „How to go from strategy to results?

Institutionalising BPM governance within organisations”, Business Process Management Journal, 22(1), 173-195, DOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2015-0031

• Kania, K. (2013), Doskonalenie zarządzania procesami biznesowymi w organizacji z wykorzystaniem modeli dojrzałości i technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych, Wydawnictwo

Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Katowice.

• Kohlegger, M., Maier, R. & Thalmann S. (2009), Understanding Maturity Models Results of a Structured Content Analysis, Proceedings of I-KNOW ’09 and I-SEMANTICS ’09 2-4

September 2009, Graz, Austria.

• Kohlegger, M. & Reijers, S. (2013), “The effects of process-oriented organizational design on

firm performance”, Business Process Management Journal, 19(2), 245–262. Retrieved from

http://http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311308303

• Lockamy III, A. & 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.

• McCormack, K.P. & Johnson, W.C. (2001), Business process orientation. Gaining the e-business competitive advantage, New York: St.Lucie Press, Retrieved from

http://http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420025569


10268


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

• McKelvie, A. & Wiklund, J. (2010), Advancing firm growth research: a focus on growth mode instead of growth rate, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Baylor University.

• Nolan, R.L. & Gibson, C.F. (1974), “Managing the Four Stages of EDP Growth”, Harvard Business Review, January-February, 74104, 76-87.

• OMG Business Process Maturity Model, Retrieved from http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.0/

• Plomp, M.G. & Batenburg, R.S. (2010), “Measuring chain digitization maturity: An assessment

of Dutch retail branches, Supply Chain Management”, An International Journal, 15(3), 227-237.

• Pullen, W. (2007), “A public sector HPT maturity model”, Perform Improvement, 46( 4), 9-15.

• Raschke, R.L. & Ingraham, L. R. (2010), Business Process Maturity’s Effect on Performance, in:

AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 402

• Rosemann, M. & de Bruin, T. (2005), Application of a Holistic Model for Determining BPM Maturity, BPTrends, February, Retrieved from http://bpm-

training.com/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/applicationholistic.pdf

• Rosemann, M. & vom Brocke, J. (2010), Handbook on Business Process Management 1, Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

• Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß & J. Becker, J. (2012), „Maturity Models in Business Process

Management”, Business Process Management Journal, 18(2), 328 – 346.

• Rummler, G.A. & Brache, A.P. (2000), Podnoszenie efektywności organizacji. Jak zarządzać białymi plamami w strukturze organizacyjnej?, PWE, Warszawa.

• Rummler-Brache Group (2004), Business process management in U.S. firms today. Retrieved

from http://rummler-brache.com

• Van Looy, A., de Backer, M. & Poels, G. (2011), “Defining business process maturity. A

journey towards excellence”. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20 (11), 1119–

1137.

• Zwicker, J., Fettke, P. & Loos, P. (2010), Business Process Maturity in public administrations,

in J. vom Brocke, M. Rosemann (Eds.). Handbook on business process management 2, Berlin,

Heidelberg: Springer. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642- 01982-1_18


10269


Pobr

ano

z ht

tps:

//ww

w.w

ir.ue

.wro

c.pl

/ D

ownl

oade

d fr

om R

epos

itory

of W

rocl

aw U

nive

rsity

of E

cono

mic

s and

Bus

ines

s 202

2-08

-15

Process Maturity Models as Tools for Organisation ...

Documents