Advertisement

A Maturity Model to Promote the Performance of Collaborative Business Processes

  • Maroua HachichaEmail author
  • Néjib Moalla
  • Muhammad Fahad
  • Yacine Ouzrout
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 467)

Abstract

Maturity models help organizations to measure the quality of their processes. These models are able to indicate how excellent business processes (BP) can perform and how organizations can reach the expected and higher performance. Maturity models aim at assessing and improving the capabilities, i.e., skills or competences, of business processes. However, finding the most appropriate maturity model is not an easy task especially for practitioners in manufacturing industry. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to critically propose a maturity model for the Collaborative Business Process (CBP) in a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). We observed in the literature a lack of the evolution maturity over the time and its impact on the business process performance.

Keywords

Maturity Collaborative business processes Performance Execution traces 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was funded by the European projects FITMAN (FP7-604674) and EASY-IMP (FP7-609078).

References

  1. 1.
    Pullen, W.: A public sector HPT maturity model. Performance Improvement 46(4), 9–15 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing maturity models for IT management– a procedure model and its application. Bus. Inform. Syst. Eng. 1, 213–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, K., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J.: Developing maturity models for it management– a procedure model and its application. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1, 213–222 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wendler, R.: The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 1317–1339 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, G.B. (ed.): The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, Management Information Systems, vol. VII, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fettke, P.: State-of-the-Art des State-of-the-Art: Eine Untersuchung der Forschungsmethode ‘‘Review’’ innerhalb der Wirtschaftsinformatik. Wirtschaftsinformatik 48, 257–266 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christiansen, S., Gausemeier, J.: Klassifikation von Reifegradmodellen, Z. Wirtschaftlich. Fabrikbetrieb 105, 344–349 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooke-Davies, T.: Project management maturity models. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K. (eds.) The Wiley Guide to Project Organization & Project Management Competencies, pp. 290–311. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crosby, P.B.: Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. McGraw-Hill, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Looy, A., Backer, M.D., Poels, G.: A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 8, 188–224 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Bruin T., Rosemann, M.: Using the delphi technique to identify BPM capability areas. In: Australian Conference on Information Systems, Toowoomba (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Looy, A., De Backer, M., Poels, G.: Defining business process maturity. A journey towards excellence. Total Qual. Manage. Bus. Excellence 20(11), 1119–1137 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OMG, Business process maturity model, version 1.0 (2008). http://www.omg.org/
  14. 14.
    McCormack, K., Johnson, W.C.: Business Process Orientation: Gaining the e-business Competitive Advantage. St. Lucie Press, Florida (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeston, J., Nelis, J.: Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines To Successful Implementations. Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vezzetti, E.: Maria Grazia Violante, Federica Marcolin, A benchmarking framework for product lifecycle management (PLM) maturity models. The Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71(5–8), 899–918 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Staden, S., Mbale, J.: The information systems interoperability maturity model (ISIMM): towards standardizing technical interoperability and assessment within government. Int. J. Inf. Eng. Electron. Bus. 4(5), 36–41 (2012). Published Online October 2012 in MECSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C4ISR, Architectures Working Group report Levels of Information Systems Interoperability (LISI), DoD, United States (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scheer, A.-W.: ARIS-Business Process Modeling, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silver, B.: BPMN: Method and Style. Cody-Cassidy Press, Aptos (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V, Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B.: Capability Maturity Model for Software (Version 1.1). Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University. CMU/SEI-93-TR-024 ESC-TR-93–177, February 1993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maroua Hachicha
    • 1
    Email author
  • Néjib Moalla
    • 1
  • Muhammad Fahad
    • 1
  • Yacine Ouzrout
    • 1
  1. 1.DISP LaboratoryUniversity of Lyon 2LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations