See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270453543

Critical Literature Review on Maturity Models for Business Process Excellence

Conference Paper · December 2014

DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2014.7058604

CITATIONS READS

10 1,065

3 authors:

Saja Albliwi Jiju Antony

King Abdulaziz University Heriot-Watt University
12 PUBLICATIONS   360 CITATIONS    337 PUBLICATIONS   10,909 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Norin Arshed
University of Dundee
45 PUBLICATIONS   197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Systematic Literature Review of Lean Six Sigma in the Public Sector View project

Critical assessment on the Six Sigma Black Belt roles/responsibilities, skills and View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saja Albliwi on 23 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Critical Literature Review on Maturity Models for Business Process
Excellence
S. A. Albliwi*, J. Antony, N. Arshed
School of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
*Corresponding author (s.albliwi@hotmail.co.uk)

Abstract - Maturity models are a useful way for an

organisation to assess their processes and the overall
The conceptual model will be modified according to the
maturity levels of the organisation. However, finding the results and suggestions collected from interviews and
most appropriate maturity model is not an easy task workshops with LSS academics, practitioners and experts.
especially for practitioners in industry. Hence, the purpose of Subsequently, the model will be verified in a number of
this paper is to critically review, compare and contrast the organisations in order to test the validity of the model, as
existing maturity models in quality/operations management suggested by a number of authors in the field of building
topics. This paper has reviewed the most common maturity and developing maturity models such as references [3, 8]
models including but not limited to Bessant’s continuous and others. A model should be valid, reliable and cost
improvement capability model, Capability Maturity Model efficient to be described as an efficient model for
(CMM) and Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
which is the most common model in the literature. The
organisations [6].
authors have observed a lack of maturity models for process
management. Therefore, the future plan for this research is II. LITERATURE REVIEW
to develop a maturity model for a specific area in process
management, which is Lean Six Sigma (LSS), as this is the A critical approach to the literature review has been
main area of interest for the authors. undertaken to explore current maturity models and
develop an appropriate maturity model for LSS.
Keywords - maturity model, process excellence, critical Reviewing the literature has resulted in some common
review, future research maturity models (see tables 1and 2).
The origins of maturity models lie in the software industry
I. INTRODUCTION
from the 1970s onwards, and they have evolved to
become an important tool for improvement in
Determining the level of process maturity is critical for
organisations aiming to assess process capability [3,4].
business stability, improvement and sustainability of any
However, there are a number of maturity models that can
organisation. The value of a maturity model is that
be applicable to business process management such as the
organisations can capture their current maturity situation
Capability Maturity Model (CMMI).
easily, without any external help from consultants. A
The presence of maturity models is important for any
maturity model is a tool to help organisations assess
organisation to be able to assess their process maturity and
strengths and weaknesses of their business processes. It
make improvements. Moreover, many authors believe that
provides a roadmap for improvement, and evaluates the
there is a clear need for a process maturity instrument that
organisation by comparing the quality standards and best
is adaptable and ready to use [6].
practices of maturity of the organisation to other
Reference [7] has stated that the availability of process
organisations [1].
maturity models is useful for organisations in term of
A review of the available literature shows that there is a
understanding their current level of process maturity and
lack of consensus on the definition of maturity model, and
to draw a map for future development of their processes.
most of the definitions have only described the capability
Process is defined by reference [5, p.456] as “a network of
levels, behaviours and the objectives of the model.
activities that are repeated in time, whose objective is to
However, reference [2, p.1318] has defined maturity
create value to external or internal customers”.
model as “a structured collection of elements that
In the real world, there are some organisations that try to
describes the characteristics of effective processes at
implement Process Management at an advanced level, and
different stages of development. It also suggests points of
therefore face the peril of failure because of ignoring the
demarcation between stages and methods of transitioning
requisite building blocks. Hence, organisations need a
from one stage to another”.
process maturity model in order to assess their current
level of process maturity, helping to reduce their risk of
This paper aims to critically review and compare and
failure. Managing the process definitely leads to
contrast a number of the existing maturity models in
production of high quality products within the constraints
quality/operations management topics. This work is a
of time and budget. This is because process management
critical step in the development of a conceptual Lean Six
at the highest possible level leads to defect-free products
Sigma maturity model, adapted from the current maturity
and services; organisations that merely manage the
models for process management and process excellence.
process, will not achieve such high quality products [7].
One powerful strategy for process management and
process excellence is Lean Six Sigma. LSS aims to
eliminate defects and reduce variation in the process of
service and product manufacturing, and leads to business
process excellence [25].
The Literature review will discuss the strength and
limitations of some existing models as well as
highlighting the pros and cons of these models. The scope
of the paper also includes comparing and contrasting
various maturity models identified in the literature review.
The findings of the above can be seen in tables 1 and 2.
A. Crosby’s Quality Management Maturity Grid”
(QMMG)
This model was developed by Philip Crosby in 1979, and
was one of the first maturity models for assessment of
quality maturity. Crosby’s model contains five stages of
maturity and six categories of measurement that help the
user to identify their own situation with regards to
maturity [9]. This model recognises the importance of
human factors such as leadership, attitude and
collaborative work [9].
B. Bessant’s Continuous Improvement Capability
model
This model was created by John Bessant in 1997 and has
five different levels of maturity plus six continuous
improvement abilities. Each ability contains a group of
behaviours (a total of 32 behaviours) which help
organisations to improve their CI capability. The basic
idea is to provide a model for assessing the general
maturity level and in particular to specify the kind of
behaviours for further development [10]. Bessant’s model
helps organisations to understand where they stand in
relation to other organisations (benchmark). It is also
useful in terms of explaining to the organisation how to
improve CI ability and embed it into the organisation until
CI becomes a way of life for enhancing business
performance.
The model is very simple and it provides a basic roadmap
for CI ability development [10,11].
C. Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
This model was developed during 1987 by the Software
Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University
and was sponsored by the US Department of Defense
(DoD) [12, 13]. It was developed to meet the needs and
characteristics of governmental organisations [14].
CMM can be defined as “a reference [process] model of
mature practices in a specified discipline, used to improve
and appraise a group's capability to perform that
discipline” SEI [15].
SEI has stated that CMM is based on the elements and
concepts of Philip Crosby’s maturity model (1979), but
the model was modified in 1991 using previous maturity
models created by Deming (1986), Juran (1988), and
Humphrey (1989). CMM contains five levels of maturity
and serves as a guide for an organisation to manage its
process for improvement. This model relies on the fact
that an organization can achieve a target maturity level
only after the implementation of several phased steps. A
model is a simplified representation of the world, and
Capability Maturity Models contain the essential elements
of effective processes for one or more disciplines.
Although this model was originally developed for the
software industry, it is also applicable to other
organisations in different business sectors, as it covers
areas such as risk management, project management,
managing and developing the workforce and more.
D. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
This model was developed in 2000. It is not a completely
new model; rather it shares some similarities in the
structure and content with CMM and ISO 9000 [12, 13]. It
can be defined as CMM with some changes in the names
of maturity levels [3, 15]. This model has integrated
different CMMs (the previous system) that provide end-
user organisations with a framework to address issues
related to project management and process in developing
products and services [16]. This model comprises five
maturity levels with 25 process areas; each process area
has a set of specific goals and practices for achieving the
goals.
CMMI serves as a guiding framework for the
development of process, as process is always seen as a
major factor in delivering high quality products in the
software industry. CMMI has many variants such as the
CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC), which aims to guide
the development, and improvement of organisations to
become mature in service practices, and CMMI for
development (CMMI-DEV) [12,13]
E. OMG’S BUSINESS PROCESS MATURITY MODEL (BPMM)
BPMM was developed in 2002 by the technology
standards organisation, Object Management Group, Inc.
(OMG) with the belief that the model will leads to high
level of business success through the level of process
maturity [23]. According to OMG 2008 [24 p.vii], “The
BPMM can be used as a process model by itself or it can
be used as a framework for improvement efforts based on
other models”. It is contains of five maturity levels and 30
process areas. This model is similar to previous maturity
models that reviewed in this paper as it is based on CMM
and it is consists of five levels of maturity. It is
documented comprehensively within 496 pages while
other BPMMs are presented in journal articles or book’s
chapter such as BPMM-Lee, PEMM, etc. [6]. This model
has two key strengths: first, strength of BPMM is the
support given to organisational learning e.g. learning from
mistakes; and second, innovative improvements and
problem preventions are in place [6].
F. Other Maturity Models
 The Year of
Purpose
Model Development
Crosby’s 1979 - To show where the company is in the quality
Grid management spectrum
Bessant’s 1997 - To assess the maturity level by using the
Model framework and improve what the organisation is
doing currently
-To determine the behaviours that need to be
developed
CMM Late 1987 -To measure practices in a certain discipline
-To guide the effort of process improvement in
the software industry
CMMI 2000 - To develop an integrated framework that
includes current and future models which solves
the problem of using many CMM and
overlapping
- To address project management and process
issues in developing products and services
OMG 2002 -To improving business process related to
products and services in an organisation
-To work as a road map that managers can use
for benchmarking and monitoring business
process
TABLE 1: Summary of Maturity Models
Subsequently, other maturity models have been developed
for different purposes and activities such as innovation,
research and development (R&D), supplier relationship,
knowledge management and so on [17].
However, software development and software engineering
have dominated most of the maturity models, although
there are differences in their structures [8].
Reference [3] conducted a systematic literature review to
present the development of maturity models. They state
that maturity models differ in their purpose; first, some
models aim to determine the current situation of the
organisation (descriptive); second, models are able to
draw a path for improvement (prescriptive); and the third
type of model allows benchmarking through and between
industries by comparing organisations in term of
similarities of practices (comparative).
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Although a number of maturity models have appeared in
the literature since 1979, there are major voids in terms of
missing significant elements in each model (see table 2).
Moreover, the most common aim for many researches was
to develop maturity models based on practice. Despite the
wide popularity of maturity models, these have always
been vulnerable to criticism. One criticism is that maturity
models are “step-by-step recipes” lacking empirical
foundation and reality [6 p.330]. Hence, there is dearth of
theoretical reflective publications [3,8]. Instead of
focusing on the factors that influence the evolution and
Limitations
- Lack of theoretical base
- Based on the researcher’s practical experience
- The application of this model has not been tested in the public
sector or large organisations yet
-Some important elements and critical success factors are missing
- Lack of theoretical base
- The way of measuring maturity is very confusing, has different
structures, terms, formats, etc.
- Needs a team to assess the process by conducting a full-scale audit
which is costly, in terms of time and effort
- More applicable to large software organisations than any other
organisations
- Completing CMM journey does not guarantee project success
- Ignores cultural factors and people’s capabilities
- It suits large and bureaucratic organisations
- Exclusive focus on the process
- Specific training and experience are essential
- Much more applicable to large software organisations than any
other organisations
- Misses consideration of human factors, cultural factors and
organisational factors
- Successful use of the model depends on the lead-assessor
- Requires a solid theoretical base to be recognised as a trustworthy
model
- The role of IT support is missing in the model
-There are lack of studies that tasted the validity and accuracy of this
model. Hence, more studies are needed to test theses two points.
drive for improvement, most maturity models rely on
levels leading towards a predefined “end state” [6].
Furthermore, there is a multitude of similar maturity
models, unsatisfactory documentation, unthinking
adoption of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
blueprint, and lack of an economic foundation. The major
criticism relates to most of the models providing limited
guidance on specific steps that should be taken in order to
improve maturity levels [6]. There is also a requirement
for criteria that will help users determine the current stage
of maturity and acknowledge the methodical progression
to the next stage [7]. Reference [7] argue that on one hand,
the available maturity models are very complicated,
needing great effort to implement, while on the other
hand, models are very simple hands-on methods for
assessing maturity levels.
Interestingly, even popular maturity models like Crosby’s
Quality Management Maturity Grid (QMMG) have been
subject to criticism by other scholars. Although this model
was created for assessing maturity of quality management,
the argument here is that this model is not absolutely
applicable to business process improvement and it is
based on the author’s practical experience. Reference [8]
argued that QMMG is not described as a lifecycle. Rather,
it describes the potential of a higher maturity level, and
leaves it to the discretion of the user to decide whether to
proceed to the next stage. In addition, a limited number of
available maturity models have QMMG as the foundation.
It seems to be unknown to many researchers and
developers of maturity models.
 Crosby’s Bessant’s
Criteria CMM CMMI OMG
Grid Model
Quality Continuous Software Different Business
Target
Management Improvement Industry Industries Process
User-friendliness Yes Yes No No No
Training No No Yes Yes Yes
Prior knowledge and experience Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Clarity of determining the current level of maturity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Empirical evidence No Yes No Yes No
Theoretical based No No No No No
Researcher experience based Yes Yes No No No
Quality standards/previous models based No No Yes Yes Yes
Complexity No No Yes Yes Yes
Performance based scoring system No No No No No
Accuracy No No Yes Yes NA
Availability of criteria to determine the current stage of maturity,
No No No No Yes
when the stage is completed and when to move to the next stage
Validity/reliability/generalization No No No No NA
TABLE 2: Maturity Models evaluation criteria

The model developed by John Bessant for Continuous
Improvement (CI) maturity has also faced some criticism
from other researchers. Reference [18] has published a
paper to revise Bessant’s model.
They argued that there are important elements and critical
success factors such as communication have not been
covered in the model. In addition, although this model was
developed from empirical research in private and public
sectors, the model has not been tested either in the public
sector or large organisations. To date, the model has only
been used by SMEs (Small and Medium Sized
Enterprises) in the manufacturing sector.
CMM has also been criticised by a number of scholars.
Reference [19] has argued that the model necessitates a
team to assess the process by conducting a full-scale audit
which is costly on time and effort. This model is very
confusing for the user in terms of measuring maturity as it
has different structures, terms, formats, etc. Moreover,
there are different CMM formats available that overlap
and are contradictory [14].
CMMI is always criticised for the specific focus on the
process and ignorance of the very important factors of
people, culture and organisation, which are critical to
project success. It is also criticised by many practitioners,
as it requires a specific type of training and experience
[14]. Moreover, this model focuses on large organisations
rich in bureaucracy. However, it can still be deployed in
small organisations. It is also criticized for the major role
the lead assessor plays in the successful deployment of the
model – in reality, there should be no difference between
the lead assessor and the other members of the team in the
successful determination of maturity [14].
There are multiple CMMI models available, as generated
by the CMMI Framework. Consequently, the user needs
to be well-prepared, choosing the best CMMI model
commensurate with the process improvement needs of the
organisation [12, 13]. In addition, both CMM and CMMI
were developed to serve large governmental software
organisations, therefore their application in other
organisations is not as successful.
Interestingly enough, reviewing the available models and
literature shows that CMMI is obviously the most
commonly used and the only standard for the majority of
the current maturity models, and it is the best one
according to academics [8].
The last model reviewed in this paper was OMG-BPMM.
Reviewing the literature shows that this model is rarely
addressed in research in particularly in comparison to
CMM and CMMI.
This model was criticised by reference [6] that it did not
cover the important role of IT support. Although this
model claims that is applicable across many organisations,
industries and locations [6], the authors call for further
research in understanding the accuracy and validity of the
model. In general, most of the available maturity models
have been developed using quality standards such as ISO,
IEC 15504, CMMI-DEV, Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award (MBQNA) and others [20]. Other models
are based on the adaption or improvement of previous
maturity models such as CMMI, CMM, Bessant’s CI
model etc., and a very small number of models are based
on Crosby’s maturity Grid. The authors also observed that
a limited number of maturity models used scientific
guidelines as a foundation for development of maturity
models. Therefore, the majority of the available models
were developed on the practical experience of the
researchers. Hence the theoretical basis is missing in most
of the models. We also observed that the validity and
generalization of the models is limited in scope.
Therefore, there is a research gap around developing a
maturity model that is based on theory for subsequent
testing in the real world. In fact, maturity models have
always been criticised for lack of consideration for
results/performance. That means it is possible to move to
the next stage of maturity without any improvement in the
business process [24].
Furthermore, the authors argue that it is important to
differentiate between process maturity and organisational
maturity. There are some models that were created for
assessing process maturity (the condition of the process in
general) such as OMG and other models for assessing
 organisational maturity (business process management
capability of the organisation) e.g. CMMI and the model
developed by reference [21, 22]. However, there are few
models that integrate the features of both types of models.
IV. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This paper has critically reviewed the most common
maturity models for Business Process excellence. The
results clearly reveal that there is a need for developing a
maturity model for Business Process excellence. Future
work will focus on developing a maturity model for Lean
Six Sigma. The development of this model will be an
attempt to bridge the research gap which is the absence of
a Lean Six Sigma maturity model. Without using a
maturity model, organisations deploying Lean Six Sigma
cannot assess their current maturity level. The model will
be developed after an in-depth analysis of the available
maturity models. The Lean Six Sigma Maturity Model
(LSS-MM) will comprise a number of levels of maturity,
behaviours/characteristics and scores. The model will be
supported by a matrix aiming to assess the maturity of
critical success factors in organisations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study was sponsored by a grant from King Abdulaziz
University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The first author is a
recipient of PhD studentship award from King Abdulaziz
University. The funding body has no role in the study
design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
[1] Pigosso, D.C.A., Rozenfeld, H. and McAloone, T.C., (2013)
“Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to
support ecodesign implementation into manufacturing
companies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, No.59 pp.160-173.
[2] Pullen, W. (2007). “A public sector HPT maturity model”,
Perform Improvement, Vol. 46 No.4, pp. 9–15.
[3] García-Mireles, G.A., Moraga, M.A. and García, F. (2012)
“Development of Maturity Models: A Systematic Literature
Review”, Proceedings of the EASE 2012 - Published by the IET,
ISBN 978-1-84919-541-6.
[4] Van looy, A., De Backer, M., Poels, G. and Snoeck, M. (2013)
“Choosing the right business process maturity model”,
Information and Management, Vol. 50, pp. 466-488.
[5] Bergman, B., & Klefsjo¨, B. (2010) “Quality from customer
needs to customer satisfaction (3rd ed.)” Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[6] Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J. and Becker, J. (2012) "Maturity
models in business process management", Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.328 – 346.
[7] Cronemyr, P. and Danielsson, M. (2013) “Process Management
1-2-3 – a maturity model and diagnostics tool”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 24 No. 7-8, pp. 933-
944, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2013.791114.
[8] Wendler, R. (2012) “The maturity of maturity model research: A
systematic mapping study”, Information and Software
Technology journal, Vol.54 No.12, pp.1317–1339.
View publication stats
[9] Crosby P.B (1979) “Quality is Free: The Art of Making
Quality Certain”, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[10] Bessant, J. and Caffyn, S. (1997). “High – involvement
innovation through continuous improvement”, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol.14 No. 1, pp. 14-
22.
[11] Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., and Gallagher, M. (2001) “An
evolutionary model of continuous improvement behaviour”,
Technovation. Vol.21 No.2, pp.67 – 77.
[12] CMMISM for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering,
Version 1.02, Continuous Representation, CMU/SEI-2000-
TR-019, ESC-TR-2000- 019, Software Engineering Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000.
[13] CMMISM for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering,
Version 1.02, Staged Representation, PA CMU/SEI-2000-
TR-018, ESC-TR-2000-018, Software Engineering Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000.
[14] Höggerl, M. and Sehorz, B. (2006) “An Introduction to
CMMI and its Assessment Procedure”, Seminar for
Computer Science, Department of Computer Science
University of Salzburg.
[15] The CMMI Overview by SEI. Available at
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/general/general.html.
[16] Kishore, R., Swinarski, M.E., Jackson, E. and Rao, H.R.
(2012) “A Quality-Distinction Model of IT Capabilities:
Conceptualization and Two-Stage Empirical Validation
Using CMMi Processes”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 457-
469.
[17] Boughzala, I. and de Vreede, G-J. (2012) “A Collaboration
Maturity Model: Development and Exploratory
Application”, 45th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences.
[18] Fryer, K., Ogden, S. and Anthony, J. (2013) "Bessant's
continuous improvement model: revisiting and revising",
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 26
No. 6, pp.481 – 494.
[19] Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., & Weber, C.V.
(1993) “Capability maturity model”, version 1.1. IEEE
Software, Vol.10 No. 4, pp.18–27.
[20] Xiaofen, T. (2013) "Investigation on quality management
maturity of Shanghai enterprises", The TQM Journal, Vol.
25 No. 4, pp.417 – 430.
[21] McCormack, K. (2007) “Business process maturity”.
Raleigh, NC: DRK Research.
[22] Van looy, A., De Backer, M., Poels, G. (2011) “Defining
business process maturity. A journey towards excellence”,
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 22
No.11 DOI:10.1080/14783363.2011.624779.
[23] R.L. Raschke, L.R. Ingraham, Business Process Maturity’s
Effect on Performance, in: AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, 2010,
Paper 402.
[24] The OMG Business Process Maturity Model. Available at
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMM/1.0/
[25] Snee, R.D. (2010), “Lean Six Sigma – getting better all the
time”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol.1 No.1,
pp.9-29