Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Back to the Roots – Investigating the Theoretical Foundations of Business Process Maturity Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Business Process Management (BPM 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13420))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

For years, doubts have been raised about the usefulness of business process maturity models (BPMMs). In addition to methodological shortcomings and limited applicability of the models, another frequently voiced critique is a weak theoretical foundation. This conceptual paper analyzes previously released BPMMs and the related literature. It shows that the vast majority of articles do not refer to any theory to clarify the general underlying assumptions of the models. Instead, they resort to other existing models. In addition, the suitability of the few theoretical approaches to which some authors have referred is highly questionable. A further comparison of the theories’ suitability issues with some of the fundamental criticisms of BPMMs reveals remarkable parallels. Against this background, the article at hand creates awareness of the need to consciously select and document the theoretical foundations of future BPMMs. In addition, it contributes to the epistemological discussion on BPMMs, how to evolve and improve the development of maturity models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersen, K.N., Lee, J., Mettler, T., Moon, M.J.: Ten misunderstandings about maturity models. In: Eom, S.-J., Lee, J. (eds.) The 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Seoul, Korea, pp. 261–266 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3396980

  2. Bayne, L., Purchase, S., Soutar, G.N.: Network change processes for environmental practices. J. Bus. Indus. Market. 36(10), 1832–1845 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-02-2020-0094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing maturity models for IT management. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1(3), 213–222 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-009-0044-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Pöppelbuß, J., Simons, A.: Maturity models in IS research. In: European Conference on Information Systems, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 1–12 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Benbasat, I., Dexter, A.S., Mantha, R.W.: Impact of organizational maturity on information system skill needs. MIS Q. 4(1), 21–34 (1980). https://doi.org/10.2307/248865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benbasat, I., Dexter, A.S., Drury, D.H., Goldstein, R.C.: A critque of the stage hypothesis. Commun. ACM 27(5), 476–485 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1145/358189.358076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bley, K.: An information systems design theory for maturity models in complex domains. In: Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, virtual, pp. 1–14 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bornmann, L., Nast, I., Daniel, H.-D.: Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication. Scientometrics 77(3), 415–432 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bvuchete, M., Grobbelaar, S.S., van Eeden, J.: A comparative review on supply chain maturity models. In: International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Pretoria/Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 1443–1454 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chaghooshi, A.J., Moradi-Moghadam, M., Etezadi, S.: Ranking business processes maturity by modified Rembrandt technique with considering CMMI dimensions. Iranian J. Manage. Stud, 9(3), 559–578 (2016). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijms.2016.57543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Corley, K.G., Gioia, D.A.: Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Manage. Rev. 36(1), 12–32 (2011). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dankasa, J.: Developing a theory in academic research: A review of experts’ advice. J. Inf/ Sci. Theory Pract. 3(3), 64–74 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2015.3.3.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M.: Using the Delphi technique to identify BPM capability areas. In: Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Toowoomba, Australia, pp. 643–653 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. de Bruin, T., Freeze, R.D., Kaulkarni, U., Rosemann, M.: Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In: Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, Australia, pp. 8–19 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dijkman, R., Lammers, S.V., de Jong, A.: Properties that influence business process management maturity and its effect on organizational performance. Inf. Syst. Front. 18(4), 717–734 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9554-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donaldson, L.: The Contingency Theory of Organizations. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2001)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Dosi, G., Nelson, R.R.: An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. J. Evol. Econ. 4, 153–172 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01236366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellwood, P., Williams, C., Egan, J.: Crossing the valley of death: Five underlying innovation processes. Technovation 109, 1–11 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Felch, V., Asdecker, B.: Quo vadis, business process maturity model? Learning from the past to envision the future. In: Fahland, D., Ghidini, C., Becker, J., Dumas, M. (eds.) Business Process Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12168, pp. 368–383. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58666-9_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Gieseler, K., Loschelder, D.D., Friese, M.: What makes for a good theory? How to evaluate a theory using the strength model of self-control as an Example. In: Sassenberg, K., Vliek, M.L.W. (eds.) Social Psychology in Action, pp. 3–21. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Gottschalk, P.: Maturity levels for police oversight Agenciespetter Gottschalk. Police J. Theory, Pract. Principles 82(4), 315–330 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2009.82.4.472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gottschalk, P., Solli-Sæther, H.: Towards a stage theory for industrial management research. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 109(9), 1264–1273 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570911002315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gregor, S.: The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q. 30(3), 611–642 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Habib, W.M.: On the change and development in organizations: A critical review of Van de Ven & Poole. SSRN Electron. J. 1995, 1–22 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1105250

  25. Heinze, P., Geers, D.: Quality management in knowledge intensive business processes – Development of a maturity model to measure the quality of knowledge intensive business processes in small and medium enterprises. In: International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing, Funchal, Portugal, pp. 276–279 (2009). https://doi.org/10.5220/0002294002760279

  26. Jadhav, M., Sapre, G.: The business process maturity model – A tool to assess capability of business process. In: International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations, Marrickville, Australia, pp. 458–464 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jochem, R., Geers, D., Heinze, P.: Maturity measurement of knowledge-intensive business processes. TQM J. 23(4), 377–387 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731111139464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaartemo, V., Coviello, N., Nummela, N.: A kaleidoscope of business network dynamics: rotating process theories to reveal network microfoundations. Ind. Mark. Manage. 91, 657–670 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kerpedzhiev, G.D., König, U.M., Röglinger, M., Rosemann, M.: An exploration into future business process management capabilities in view of digitalization. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 63(2), 83–96 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00637-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. King, J.L., Krämer, K.L.: Evolution and organizational information systems: an assessment of nolan’s stage model. Commun. ACM 27(5), 466–475 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1145/358189.358074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. King, W.R., Teo, T.S.: Integration between business planning and information systems planning: Validating a stage hypothesis. Decis. Sci. 28(2), 279–308 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01312.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lasrado, L.A., Vatrapu, R., Andersen, K.N.: A set theoretical approach to maturity models: Guidelines and demonstration. In: International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 1–20 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W.: Organization and Environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lee, J., Lee, D., Kang, S.: An overview of the business process maturity model (BPMM). In: Chang, K.-C., et al. (eds.) Advances in Web and Network Technologies, and Information Management. LNCS, vol. 4537, pp. 384–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72909-9_42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Lucas, H.C., Sutton, J.A.: The stage hypothesis and the S-curve. Commun. ACM 20(4), 254–259 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1145/359461.359472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lynham, S.A.: The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 4(3), 221–241 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422302043002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mahmood, M.A., Becker, J.D.: Effect of organizational maturity on end-users’ satisfaction with information systems. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2(3), 37–64 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1985.11517736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meyer, J.W., BoliBennett, J., Chase-Dunn, C.: Convergence and divergence in development. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1, 223–246 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.001255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mishra, R.: Welfare and industrial man: A study of welfare in western industrial societies in relation to a hypothesis of convergence. Sociol. Rev. 21(4), 535–560 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1973.tb00496.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moradi-Moghadam, M., Safari, H., Maleki, M.: A novel model for business process maturity assessment through combining maturity models with EFQM and ISO 9004:2009. Int. J. Bus. Process. Integr. Manage. 6(2), 167–184 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPIM.2013.054680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Müller, B., Urbach, N.: The why, what, and how of theories in IS research. In: International Conference on Information Systems, Milan, Italy, pp. 1–25 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Müller, B., Urbach, N.: Understanding the why, what, and how of theories in IS research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 41, 349–388 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G.: An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap Press, Cambridge, London (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Niehaves, B., Plattfaut, R., Becker, J.: Business process management capabilities in local governments: A multi-method study. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(3), 217–225 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Niehaves, B., Pöppelbuß, J., Plattfaut, R., Becker, J.: BPM capability development – A matter of contingencies. Bus. Process. Manage. J. 20(1), 90–106 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2012-0068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nielsen, J.F.: Models of change and the adoption of web technologies: Encapsulating participation. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 44(2), 263–286 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308314900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nolan, R.L.: Managing the computer resource. Commun. ACM 16(7), 399–405 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1145/362280.362284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nolan, R.L.: Managing the crises in data processing. Harv. Bus. Rev. 57(2), 115–126 (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary: Definition of Suitability Noun. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/suitability. Accessed 3 Mar 2022

  50. Park, Y., Fiss, P., El Sawy, O.A.: Theorizing the multiplicity of digital phenomena: The ecology of configurations, causal recipes, and guidelines for applying QCA. MIS Q. 44(4), 1493–1520 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Patas, J.: Developing individual IT-enabled capabilities for management control systems. In: Mayer, J.H., Quick, R. (eds.) Business Intelligence for New-Generation Managers, pp. 51–66. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15696-5_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Penrose, E.: The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. JohnWiley, New York (1959)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Pentland, B.T.: Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24(4), 711–724 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2307/259350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M.: What makes a useful maturity model? A framework for general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In: European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, Finland (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Pöppelbuß, J., Niehaves, B., Simons, A., Becker, J.: Maturity models in information systems research: Literature search and analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 29, 505–532 (2011). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pöppelbuß, J., Plattfaut, R., Niehaves, B.: How do we progress? An exploration of alternate explanations for  BPM capability development. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 36, 1–22 (2015). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, New York (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J.: Maturity models in business process management. Bus. Process. Manag. J. 18(2), 328–346 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/14637151211225225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rohloff, M.: An approach to assess the implementation of business process management in enterprises. In: European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Rohloff, M.: Case study and maturity model for business process management implementation. In: Dayal, U., Eder, J., Koehler, J., Reijers, H.A. (eds.) Business Process Management. LNCS, vol. 5701, pp. 128–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Rohloff, M.: Process management maturity assessment. In: Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, California, pp. 1–12 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rohloff, M.: Advances in business process management implementation based on a maturity assessment and best practice exchange. ISeB 9(3), 383–403 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-010-0137-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rosemann, M.: The service portfolio of a BPM center of excellence. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 2. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 381–398. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45103-4_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T.: Towards a business process management maturity model. In: European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, Germany (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T., Hueffner, T.: A model for business process management maturity. In: Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Rosemann, M., Recker, J., Vessey, I.: An examination of IS conference reviewing practices. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 26, 287–304 (2010). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Saarinen, T.: Evolution of information systems in organizations. Behav. Inf. Technol. 8(5), 387–398 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1080/01449298908914568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., Goles, T.: The dynamics of alignment: Insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organ. Sci. 12(2), 179–197 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.179.10113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Schmitt, C., Starke, P.: Explaining convergence of OECD welfare states: A conditional approach. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 21(2), 120–135 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928710395049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Solli-Sæther, H., Gottschalk, P.: The modeling process for stage models. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 20(3), 279–293 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2010.494535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Straub, D.W.: Editor’s comments: Why top journals accept your paper. MIS Q. 33(3), 3–10 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/20650302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Straub, D.W., Ang, S.: Editor’s comments: Readability and the relevance versus rigor debate. MIS Q. 32(4), 3–8 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2307/25148865

  73. Sutton, R.I., Staw, B.M.: What theory is not. Adm. Sci. Q. 40(3), 371–384 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Swanson, R.A., Holton, E.F., III.: Foundations of Human Resource Development. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Tapia, R.S., Daneva, M., van Eck, P., Wieringa, R.: Towards a business-IT aligned maturity model for collaborative networked organizations. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops, Munich, Germany, pp. 70–81 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDOCW.2008.59

  76. Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H.A.: Business process maturity models: A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 122–134 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 18(7), 509–533 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3c509:AID-SMJ882%3e3.0.CO;2-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Thordsen, T., Murawski, M., Bick, M.: How to measure digitalization? A critical evaluation of digital maturity models. In: Hattingh, M., Matthee, M., Smuts, H., Pappas, I., Dwivedi, Y.K., Mäntymäki, M. (eds.) Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology. LNCS, vol. 12066, pp. 358–369. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44999-5_30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. Vaast, E., Binz-Scharf, M.C.: Bringing change in government organizations: Evolution towards post-bureaucracy with web-based IT projects. In: International Conference on Information Systems, Paris, France, pp. 1–16 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  80. van de Ven, A.H., Poole, M.S.: Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20(3), 510–540 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2307/258786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. van Looy, A.: Business Process Maturity. A Comparative Study on a Sample of Business Process Maturity Models. SpringerBriefs in Business Process Management SBPM, pp. 1–86. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04202-2

  82. van Looy, A., Backer, M. de, Poels, G.: Defining business process maturity. A journey towards excellence. Total Qual. Manage. Bus. Excell. 22(11), 1119–1137 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.624779

  83. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), 8–18 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Weick, K.E., Quinn, R.E.: Organizational change and development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 361–386 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Williamson, J.B., Fleming, J.J.: Convergence theory and the social welfare sector: A cross-national analysis. Int. J. Comp. Sociol. 18(3–4), 242–253 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1177/002071527701800303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Fettke, P., Zwicker, J., Loos, P.: Business process maturity in public administrations. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds.) Handbook on Business Process Management 2. International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 485–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45103-4_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bamberg, Feldkirchenstr. 21, 96050, Bamberg, Germany

    Vanessa Felch & Björn Asdecker

Authors
  1. Vanessa Felch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Björn Asdecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Felch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Claudio Di Ciccio

  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Remco Dijkman

  3. Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain

    Adela del Río Ortega

  4. Technical University of Munich, Garching, Germany

    Stefanie Rinderle-Ma

1 Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 145 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Felch, V., Asdecker, B. (2022). Back to the Roots – Investigating the Theoretical Foundations of Business Process Maturity Models. In: Di Ciccio, C., Dijkman, R., del Río Ortega, A., Rinderle-Ma, S. (eds) Business Process Management. BPM 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13420. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16103-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16103-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-16102-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-16103-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation