Framework Conceptual

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/254228397
A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business

process maturity
Article in Enterprise Information Systems · May 2012

DOI: 10.1080/17517575.2012.688222
CITATIONS READS
119 2,121
3 authors, including:
Amy Van Looy Geert Poels

Ghent University Ghent University
86 PUBLICATIONS 902 CITATIONS 312 PUBLICATIONS 3,544 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Quality of conceptual models View project
Investigating and Addressing Enterprise Adaptability in Complexity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Geert Poels on 18 March 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Gent]
On: 22 March 2013, At: 01:29
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
Enterprise Information Systems

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/teis20
A conceptual framework and

classification of capability areas for
business process maturity
a b a b c d b
Amy Van Looy , Manu De Backer & Geert Poels
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
Version of record first published: 24 May 2012.
To cite this article: Amy Van Looy , Manu De Backer & Geert Poels (2012): A conceptual framework
and classification of capability areas for business process maturity, Enterprise Information Systems,
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
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
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.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 01:29 22 March 2013
2012, 1–37, iFirst article
A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for

business process maturity
Amy Van Looya,b*, Manu De Backera,b,c,d and Geert Poelsb
a
Faculty of Business Administration and Public Administration – Department of Management and
ICT, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; bFaculty of Economics and Business
Administration – Department of Management Information Science and Operations Management,
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; cFaculty of Applied Economics – Department of Management
Information Systems, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; dFaculty 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
*Corresponding author. Email: amy.vanlooy@hogent.be
ISSN 1751-7575 print/ISSN 1751-7583 online

Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2012.688222
http://www.tandfonline.com
2 A. Van Looy et al.
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
Enterprise Information Systems 3
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
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,
(2) human resource management and (3) strategic management. This link is
appropriate, since most organisational changes also involve business processes
(Baumöl 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
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.
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
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
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)
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
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 Brabänder 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,
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
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).
. 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
Brabänder 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 Brabänder 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 Brabänder 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.
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.
Figure 3. The capability sub areas in actual BPMMs.

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
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,
ORA, REM, ROS, SCH1,
SEI, WIL
SC: ABE, AND, ARY, CGR, SC: BOH, CAM3, CHI, 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
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 (R2), whereas those in the stepwise method
respectively explain 93.4% and 66.4%. All discriminant functions and the associated
scatter plot with BPMMs are available in Figure 4. In future research, these
functions can also be used to classify new BPMMs that do not appear in our dataset.
Figure 4 shows the centroids of each cluster, based on the cluster means of the
independents. Although the centroids are the best representations of each cluster,
they merely serve a 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).
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
20
Table 2. The classification results of discriminant analysis compared to cluster analysis.
Predicted group membership Predicted group membership

for the regular method for the stepwise method
A B (Intermediate B (intermediate
Ward’s clusters (BPM) BPO) C (BPO) A (BPM) BPO) C (BPO) Total
Original Count A(BPM) 23 0 0 22 1 0 23
B (intermediate BPO) 0 26 0 1 25 0 26
C (BPO) 0 1 19 0 3 17 20
Result 98.55% (i.e. 68/69) of original 92.75% (i.e. 64/69) of original
grouped cases correctly classified. grouped cases correctly classified.
(kappa ¼ 0.978 4 0.75; p 5 0.001) (kappa ¼ 0.890 4 0.75; p 5 0.001)
Cross- Count A(BPM) 21 2 0 21 2 0 23
A. Van Looy et al.
validateda B (intermediateBPO) 4 22 0 1 23 2 26
C (BPO) 1 3 16 1 3 16 20
Result 85.51% (i.e. 59/69) of cross-validated 86.96% (i.e. 60/69) of cross-validated
grouped cases correctly classified. grouped cases correctly classified.
(kappa ¼ 0.780 4 0.75; p 5 0.001) (kappa ¼ 0.802 4 0.75; p 5 0.001)
a
In cross validation, each case (i.e. BPMM) is classified by the discriminant functions derived from all cases other than that case.
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
Figure 5. The completeness of BPMMs.

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.
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
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://
www-935.ibm.com/services/us/igs/pdf/aberdeen-benchmark-report.pdf [Accessed 23 June
2010].
Anderson, D.L. and Lee, H.L., 2000. The internet-enabled supply chain. In: D.L. Anderson,
ed. Achieving supply chain excellence through technology. Vol. 2. San Francisco:
Montgomery Research, 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.
Baumöl, 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].
Böhme, 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.
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
from: https://www.bpminstitute.org/uploads/media/Champlin-6-25-08.pdf [Accessed 20
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.
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].
Hüffner, T., 2004. The BPM maturity model. Munich: GRIN.
IBM, 2007. The IBM global business services 2007 Mainland China value chain study [online].
Available from: http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/#Next [Ac-
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-
scheer.nl/set/2238/Overview%20BPM%20maturity%20model.pdf [Accessed 22 June
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.
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.
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:
http://catalcatel.iese.edu/WEBSCM/Archivos/MaturityModel.pdf [Accessed 6 June 2010].
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 Brabänder, 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.
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.
Appendix 1. The collected BPMMs (N ¼ 69)

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 Armistead and Machin 1997,
of a larger survey) Pritchard and Armistead
1999
DET DeToro and McCabe Process condition rating model DeToro and McCabe 1997
HAM Hammer Process and Enterprise Maturity Hammer 2007
Model (PEMM)
HAR1 Harrington Process maturity grid Harrington 1991, 2006
LEE Lee, Lee and Kang Value-based process maturity Lee et al. 2007, 2009
model (vPMM)
MAU Maull, Tranfield and Maull 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 Rohloff 2009a,b

assessment (PMMA)
ROS Rosemann, de Bruin and Power BPM maturity model de Bruin and Rosemann
2007, Hüffner 2004,
Rosemann and de Bruin
2005
SEI SEI, Software Engineering . Capability maturity model SEI 2006a,b, 2007, 2009
Institute (Carnegie Mellon integration (CMMI)
University) . Standard CMMI appraisal
method for process
improvement (SCAMPI)
SKR Skrinjar, Bosilj-Vuksic, BPO maturity model Skrinjar et al. 2008
Stemberger and Hernaus
WIL Willaert, Van den Bergh, Willems Holistic BPO maturity Willaert et al. 2007
and Deschoolmeester framework
(1.2) Non-academic
BIS Bisnez Management, Business BPM maturity model (in Dutch: Bisnez Management 2010
and IT Trends Institute, ‘BPM volwassenheidsmodel’)
students of Erasmus
University, BPM Magazine,
Information Magazine
BPM BPMInstitute State of BPM (as part of a larger BPMInstitute 2010, Dwyer
BPM survey) 2006
BPT BP Transformations Group and 8 Omega ORCA (Organisational BPT Group 2008, Towers
BPGroup (previously BPM readiness and capability 2009
Group) assessment)
CAM1 CAM-I, Consortium for Process-based management loop: Dowdle et al. 2005
Advanced Management- . discipline model
International (organisation’s current
philosophy, business model,
methods and tools)
. process-based management
assessment model
(components)
. process continuum model
(levels)
CAM2 CAM-I, Consortium for Process-based management Dowdle and Stevens 2007
Advanced Management- assessment and
International implementation road map
CHA Champlin (ABPMP) Process management maturity Champlin 2008
model
DEL Deloitte and Utrecht University Business maturity model and scan Deloitte 2010
ESI1 ESI, European Software Institute EFQM/SPICE integrated model Ostolaza and Garcia 1999
FAA FAA, Federal Aviation FAA 2001, 2004, 2006
Administration . FAA integrated capability
maturity model (FAA-iCMM)
(continued)
Appendix 1. (Continued).
. FAA-iCMM appraisal method

(FAM)
FIS Fisher (BearingPoint) Business process maturity model Fisher 2004
GAR1 Gardner Process improvement road map Gardner 2004
GAR2 Gartner BPM maturity and adoption Melenovsky and Sinur 2006
model
HAR2 Harmon (BPTrends) Informal BP maturity evaluation Harmon 2004
model
IDS IDS Scheer, Software AG IDS Scheer 2010, Luyckx
. BPM maturity check 2007, Scheer and
. BPM road map assessment Brabaender 2009
ISO ISO/IEC, International ISO/IEC 15504 ISO/IEC 2003, 2008
Organisation for
Standardisation and
International Electrotechnical
Commission
O&I O&i BPM scan O&i 2010, Tolsma and de Wit

2009
OMG OMG, Object Management Business process maturity model OMG 2008
Group (BPMM)
ORA Oracle and BEA Systems BPM lifecycle assessment survey Oracle 2008a,b
REM Remoreras Process culture maturity model Remoreras 2009
RUM Rummler-Brache Group Process Performance Index Rummler-Brache Group 2004
SAP SAP Process maturity analysis and Scavillo 2008
plan
SCH1 Scheer BPM check-up Scheer 2007
SMI Smith and Fingar Process management maturity Smith and Fingar 2004
model (PMMM)
SPA Spanyi BP competence grid Spanyi 2004a,b
(2) Supply chain
(2.1) Academic
ARY Aryee, Naim and Lalwani SC integration maturity model Aryee et al. 2008
BOH Böhme and Childerhouse SC integration evaluation tool Böhme 2008
and maturity model
CAM3 Campbell and Sankaran SC integration enhancement Campbell and Sankaran 2005
framework (SCIEF)
MCC2 McCormack et al. SC management maturity model Lockamy III and
McCormack 2004,
McCormack 2007b
MCL McLaren Web-enabled SC integration McClaren 2006
measurement model
MIC Michigan State University 21st Century Logistics Closs and Mollenkopf 2004,
Framework Mollenkopf and Dapiran
2005
NET Netland, Alfnes and Fauske SC maturity assessment test Netland et al. 2007, Netland
(SCMAT) and Alfnes 2008
RIV Riverola SC management – Technology Riverola 2001
maturity model
TOK Tokyo Institute of Technology Logistics scorecard (LSC) Enkawa 2005, Yaibuathet
et al. 2008
(2.2) Non-academic
ABE AberdeenGroup Global SC maturity framework AberdeenGroup 2006
AND Andersen Consulting (Accenture) SC continuum Anderson and Lee 2000
CGF CGF, Consumer Goods Forum Global scorecard for efficient CGF 2010
(former GCI, Global consumer response capability
Commerce Initiative)
CGR CGR Management Consulting SC management maturity model Ayers 2010a,b
CHI Chicago Consulting SC maturity model Chicago Consulting 2010
CSC CSC, SC Management Review Poirier et al. 2010
Magazine and Michigan State . SC maturity model (until 2006)
University . Ten SC competencies (as from
2007)
(continued)
2
EKN eKNOWtion SC maturity monitor (SCM ) eKNOWtion 2009
IBM IBM SC maturity model IBM 2007
JER Jeroen van den Bergh Consulting SC maturity scan van den Bergh 2010
and VU University
Amsterdam
LMI LMI Research Institute GAIA SC sustainability maturity Boone et al. 2009
model
MAN Manugistics and JDA Software SC Compass Holmes 1997
PMG PMG and PRTM SC maturity model Cohen and Roussel 2005
SCC SCC, Supply Chain Council and SCORmark Survey (for APQC 2007, Supply-Chain
APQC benchmarking, resulting in an Council 2008
improvement road map)
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
new product introduction and
development)
MAG Magdaleno, Cappelli, Baiao, Collaboration maturity model Magdaleno et al. 2008
Santoro and Araujo (ColabMM)
RAM Ramasubbu and Krishnan Process maturity framework for Ramasubbu and Krishnan
managing distributed software 2005
product development
SIM Simatupang and Sridharan SC Collaboration index Simatupang and Sridharan
2005
TAP Tapia, Daneva, vanEck and IT-enabled collaborative Tapia et al. 2008
Wieringa networked organisations
maturity model (ICoNOs
MM)
WOG Wognum and Faber Fast reactive extended enterprise Wognum and Faber 2002
– capability assessment
framework (FREE-CAF)
(3.2) Non-academic
ESI2 ESI, European Software Institute Enterprise Collaboration de Soria et al. 2009
Maturity Model
VIC Voluntary Interindustry Collaborative planning, VICS 2004
Commerce Standards forecasting and replenishment
(CPFR) rollout readiness self-
assessment
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 0 0 More
ARM 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
DET 0 0 1 0 0 0 One
HAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 One/All
HAR1 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
LEE 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MAU 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
MCC1 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
ROH 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
ROS 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
SEI 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
SKR 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
WIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
BIS 1 1 1 1 0 1 All
BPM 1 1 1 1 0 1 All
BPT 0 1 1 1 1 0 All
CAM1 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
CAM2 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
CHA 1 1 1 1 1 1 One/All
DEL 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
ESI1 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
FAA 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
FIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
GAR1 1 1 1 1 1 1 One
GAR2 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
HAR2 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
IDS 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
ISO 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
O&I 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
OMG 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
ORA 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
REM 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
RUM 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
SAP 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
SCH1 1 1 1 1 1 1 All
SMI 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
SPA 1 1 1 1 1 0 All
ARY 0 1 0 1 1 1 More
BOH 0 1 1 1 1 1 More
CAM3 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MCC2 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MCL 0 1 1 1 0 0 More
MIC 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
NET 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
RIV 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
TOK 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
ABE 0 1 1 1 0 0 More
(continued)
Number
BP BP BPM BPM BPO BPO of BPs
BPMM modelling deployment optimisation management culture structure addressed
AND 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
CGF 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
CGR 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
CHI 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
CSC 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
EKN 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
IBM 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
JER 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
LMI 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
MAN 1 1 1 1 0 0 More
PMG 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
SCC 0 1 1 0 0 0 More
SCH2 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
STE 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
FRA 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
MAG 1 1 1 1 1 0 One
RAM 0 1 1 1 1 0 One
SIM 0 1 1 1 0 0 More
TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 More
WOG 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
ESI2 1 1 1 1 1 0 More
VIC 0 1 1 1 1 0 More
Refinement of the mapping into capability sub areas:
Implemen- Measure- Improve-

BPMM Design Analysis tation ment Evaluation ment Strategy External Roles Skills Daily Values Attitudes Appraisals Top Chart Bodies
AOU 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
ARM 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
DET 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HAM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1
HAR1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
LEE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
MAU 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
MCC1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
ROH 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
ROS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
SEI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
SKR 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
WIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
BIS 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
BPM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
BPT 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
CAM1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
CAM2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
CHA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
DEL 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
ESI1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
FAA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
FIS 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
GAR1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
GAR2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
HAR2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
IDS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
ISO 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
O&I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
OMG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
ORA 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
REM 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
RUM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
(continued)
35
36
Implemen- Measure- Improve-

BPMM Design Analysis tation ment Evaluation ment Strategy External Roles Skills Daily Values Attitudes Appraisals Top Chart Bodies
SAP 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
SCH1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
SMI 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
SPA 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
ARY 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0
BOH 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
CAM3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
MCC2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
MCL 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
MIC 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
NET 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
RIV 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOK 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
ABE 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
AND 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
CGF 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CGR 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
CHI 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
CSC 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
EKN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
A. Van Looy et al.
IBM 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
JER 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
LMI 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
MAN 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
PMG 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
SCC 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SCH2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
STE 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
FRA 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
MAG 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
RAM 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
SIM 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
WOG 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
ESI2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
VIC 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
View publication stats

Appendix 3. The degree of capability area representation per cluster
Implemen- Measure- Eva- Improve- Strate- Attitu- Apprai-
Clusters Design Analysis tation ment luation ment gy External Roles Skills Daily Values des sals Top Chart Bodies
Full sample: hierarchical Ward’s method (N ¼ 69)

A (BPM) N ¼ 23 Mean 0.74 0.04 0.74 0.87 0.96 0.74 0.74 0.52 0.52 0.22 0.57 0.26 0.13 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.13
SD 0.449 0.209 0.449 0.344 0.209 0.449 0.449 0.511 0.511 0.422 0.507 0.449 0.344 0.288 0.388 0.388 0.344
B (interm. BPO) Mean 0.73 0.000 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.88 0.69 0.81 0.62 0.81 0.92 0.46 0.27 0.08
N ¼ 26 SD 0.452 0.000 0.272 0.000 0.000 0.196 0.196 0.402 0.326 0.471 0.402 0.496 0.402 0.272 0.508 0.452 0.272
C (BPO) N ¼ 20 Mean 1.00 0.70 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.95 0.70 0.70 0.95 0.80 0.75 0.40 0.75
SD 0.000 0.470 0.366 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.308 0.366 0.000 0.224 0.470 0.470 0.224 0.410 0.444 0.503 0.444
Total Mean 0.81 0.22 0.84 0.96 0.99 0.90 0.87 0.72 0.80 0.61 0.70 0.52 0.62 0.61 0.45 0.28 0.29
N ¼ 69 SD 0.394 0.415 0.369 0.205 0.120 0.304 0.339 0.450 0.405 0.492 0.464 0.503 0.488 0.492 0.501 0.450 0.457
Split sample: hierarchical Ward’s method (N ¼ 37)

A (BPM) N ¼ 8 Mean 0.88 0.13 0.63 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.25 0.50 0.000 0.13 0.50 0.25 0.000 0.13 0.13 0.000
SD 0.354 0.354 0.518 0.463 0.000 0.535 0.463 0.463 0.535 0.000 0.354 0.535 0.463 0.000 0.354 0.354 0.000
B (interm. BPO) Mean 1.00 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.78 0.56 0.11 0.44 0.67 0.000 0.000 0.33
N¼9 SD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.441 0.527 0.333 0.527 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.50
C (BPO) N ¼ 20 Mean 0.95 0.60 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.70 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.40 0.65
SD 0.224 0.503 0.366 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.308 0.410 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.470 0.366 0.410 0.410 0.503 0.489
Total Mean 0.95 0.35 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.57 0.89 0.73 0.46 0.51 0.62 0.59 0.46 0.24 0.43
N ¼ 37 SD 0.229 0.484 0.374 0.229 0.000 0.315 0.315 0.502 0.315 0.450 0.505 0.507 0.492 0.498 0.505 0.435 0.502
Dark grey ¼ high representation (1 0.665); light grey ¼ medium representation (0.335 5 0.665).
37

Framework Conceptual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Framework Conceptual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

A conceptual framework and classiﬁcation of capability areas for business

Article in Enterprise Information Systems · May 2012

Amy Van Looy Geert Poels

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Quality of conceptual models View project

Investigating and Addressing Enterprise Adaptability in Complexity View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Enterprise Information Systems

A conceptual framework and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2012.688222

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

A conceptual framework and classiﬁcation of capability areas for

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

*Corresponding author. Email: amy.vanlooy@hogent.be

ISSN 1751-7575 print/ISSN 1751-7583 online

market and (2) growing IT possibilities to support business processes (Harrington

. RQ1. Which capability areas can be assessed and improved by a BPMM in

reﬂecting diﬀerent levels of coverage by existing BPMMs. The relationships with

2.1. Literature study (RQ1)

2.2. Sampling (RQ2 and RQ3)

2.3. Content analysis and descriptive statistics (RQ2)

2.4. Classiﬁcation by multivariate statistics (RQ3)

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

the capability areas as follows.

3.2. Empirical validation of main capability areas

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

4.1.1. Theories on the traditional business process lifecycle

. Business process design deals with the identiﬁcation and representation of a

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

. Business process implementation and enactment implies both the preparation

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

. Business process evaluation uses enactment information to quantify the

(Netjes et al. 2006, Kannengiesser 2008).

4.1.2. Theories on organisation management

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

. Strategy and KPIs. Since business processes must contribute to customer

nication or committing to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with partnering

. Values. A process-oriented culture implies ‘a certain set of values considered

. Attitudes and behaviours. These values must be concretised in attitudes and

. Process-oriented organisation chart. Various authors suggest a shift from a

4.2. Empirical validation of capability sub areas

Figure 3. The capability sub areas in actual BPMMs.

The mapping of theoretical capability areas to existing BPMMs has conﬁrmed

. A Cohen’s Kappa value was computed as a measure of agreement on group

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

5.2. Conﬁrmatory classiﬁcation by discriminant analysis

Table 1. The group membership according to cluster analysis.

Cluster A (23) Cluster B (26) Cluster C (20)

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

An approximation of the predicted memberships are visualised by circles per

Table 2. The classiﬁcation results of discriminant analysis compared to cluster analysis.

Predicted group membership Predicted group membership

design, measurement, evaluation, strategy, roles and BPO-oriented attitudes. It thus

speciﬁc or all business processes (de Bruin and Rosemann 2007).

Figure 5. The completeness of BPMMs.

Table 3. A ﬁnal BPMM classiﬁcation.

Intermediate BPO for

RIV, SCC MIC, NET, PMG,

. business process management (BPM) maturity, primarily focussing on

BPO maturity is the most comprehensive but requires top management