The challenge to determine a company’s process maturity: a case study from the financial services industry
Purpose. Conducting projects to improve a company’s business processes is of utmost importance in all industries and countries. Many companies have installed specific organizational units to develop guidelines for process design, to document and maintain of these processes, and to further increase the processes’ efficiency. Although these enterprises continually work on improving their processes, they often struggle to answer the question on the current status of the maturity of their processes. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to characterize the methodology, applicability, pitfalls and benefits of analyzing the maturity of processes.
Design/Method/Approach. This work is based on mixed-methods research recently conducted in a medium-sized German bank.
Findings. The paper defined the benefits of measuring the level of maturity of the company’s processes clearly. This work identified the substantial theoretical drawbacks, such as, for example, the lack of considering of process innovation in the extant models of process maturity.
Limitations. Naturally, a research limitation is the analysis of a specific company in the financial services sector.
Theoretical implications. From a theoretical point of view it is critical to choose the appropriate model out of a variety of available process maturity models. In fact, the selection of the model influences the data, the subsequent interpretation of these data, and the conclusions to be drawn for the company.
Originality/Value. The paper is novel as it presents–based on empirical data–the measurement of process maturity including the derivation of implications from both an academic and a practical perspective. In addition, the impact of process maturity on perceived process performance could be shown.
Paper type – empirical.
de Bruin, T. and Rosemann, M. (2007). Using the Delphi Technique to Identify BPM Capability Areas. In: Proceedings of the 18th Australian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2007), Paper 42.
Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., and Reijers, H.A. (2013). Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Berlin Heidelberg, Springer.
EABPM (2014). PM CBOK® – Business Process Management Common Body of Knowledge. Leitfaden für das Prozessmanagement, Version 3.0, 2nd ed., Gießen.
Grau, C. and Moormann, J. (2014). Empirical Evidence for the Impact of Organizational Culture on Process Quality. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2014).
Harmon, P. (2014). Business Process Change. A Business Process Management Guide for Managers and Process Professionals, 3rd ed., Burlington/MA, Morgan Kaufmann
Hogrebe, F., & Nüttgens, M. (2009). Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM): Konzeption, Anwendung und Nutzenpotenziale. HMD Praxis Der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 46(2), 17–25. doi:10.1007/bf03340339. CrossRef
Kamprath, N. (2011). Einsatz von Reifegradmodellen im Prozessmanagement. HMD Praxis Der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 48(6), 93–102. doi:10.1007/bf03340648. CrossRef
Lee, J., Lee, D., & Kang, S. (n.d.). An Overview of the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM). Advances in Web and Network Technologies, and Information Management, 384–395. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72909-9_42. CrossRef
McCormack, K. (2007). Business Process Maturity. Theory and Application, North Charleston/SC, Booksurge.
Minonne, C., Colicchio, C., Litzke, M., and Keller T. (2011). Business Process Management 2011 – Status quo und Zukunft: Eine empirische Studie im deutschsprachigen. Europa, Zurich, ZHAW.
OMG (2008). Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM). Version 1.0, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMM/1.0/PDF (last access date: April 23, 2017). omg.org
Pöppelbuß, J. & Röglinger, M. (2011). What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2011).
Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., & Becker, J. (2012). Maturity models in business process management. Business Process Management Journal, 18(2), 328–346. doi:10.1108/14637151211225225. CrossRef
Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2014). The Six Core Elements of Business Process Management. Handbook on Business Process Management 1, 105–122. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45100-3_5. CrossRef
Schmelzer, H. J. and Sesselmann, W. (2013). Geschäftsprozessmanagement in der Praxis, 8th ed., Munich, Hanser.
Škrinjar, R., Bosilj‐Vukšić, V., & Indihar‐Štemberger, M. (2008). The impact of business process orientation on financial and non‐financial performance. Business Process Management Journal, 14(5), 738–754. doi:10.1108/14637150810903084. CrossRef
Van Looy, A. (2014). Conclusion. Business Process Maturity, 69–86. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04202-2_3. CrossRef
Van Looy, A. (2015). An experiment for measuring business process maturity with different maturity models. In: Proceedings of the 23nd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015), Paper 192.
Van Looy, A., De Backer, M., & Poels, G. (2011). Defining business process maturity. A journey towards excellence. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(11), 1119–1137. doi:10.1080/14783363.2011.624779. CrossRef
Van Looy, A., De Backer, M., Poels, G., & Snoeck, M. (2013). Choosing the right business process maturity model. Information & Management, 50(7), 466–488. doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.06.002. CrossRef
The authors agree with the following conditions:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to complete individual additional agreements for the non-exclusive spreading of the journal’s published version of the work (for example, to post work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), with the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. Journal’s politics allows and encourages the placement on the Internet (for example, in the repositories of institutions, personal websites, SSRN, ResearchGate, MPRA, SSOAR etc.) manuscript of the work by the authors, before and during the process pf viewing it by this journal, because it can lead to a productive research discussion and positively affect the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).