Abstract
Business Process Management (BPM) increasingly provides an important contribution to public administration modernization. Besides providing the potentials for the improvement of efficiency and effectiveness of public administration, BPM approaches also enable the improvement of service orientation. One building block of service orientation is the response time of public authorities between the application of a public service and the provision of service result. Based on specifics of the public administration domain, in this chapter, a domain-specific BPM maturity model for the fulfillment of a 48-h-service promise is proposed. Using the maturity model, a BPM for government processes can be established realizing a response time of 48 h for public authorities. The model is based on and adapts existing BPM maturity models. The chapter outlines the features and describes the evaluation of the model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Andersen KV, Henriksen HZ (2006) E-Government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Gov Inf Q 23(2):236–248
Becker J, Algermissen L, Falk T (2007) Prozessorientierte Verwaltungsmodernisierung: Prozessmanagement im Zeitalter von E-Government und New Public Management. Springer, Berlin
Becker J, Kugeler M, Rosemann M (eds) (2003) Process management. Springer, Berlin
Esteves J, Joseph RC (2008) A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Gov Inf Q 25(1):118–132
Fisher DM (2004) The business process maturity model – a practical approach for identifying opportunities for optimization [Electronic Version]. Business Process Trends. Retrieved 2008-07-23 from http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/10%2D04%20ART%20BP%20Maturity%20Model%20%2D%20Fisher%2Epdf
Fontelles JB, Pekkarinen M (2006) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market. 2006/123/EC, European Union, L 376
France RB, Rumpe B (2005) Domain specific modeling. Softw Syst Model 4(1):1–3
Gisler M (2001) Einführung in die Begriffswelt des E-Government. In: Gisler M, Spahni D (eds) eGovernment: Eine Standortbestimmung. Bern, Haupt pp 13–30
Güngöz Ö (2007) Modellgestütztes Rahmenwerk für das Management von komplexen und schwach-strukturierten Verwaltungsprozessen. Lohmar, Eul
Hammer M (2007) The Process Audit. Harv Bus Rev 85(4):124–131
Harmon P (2004) Evaluating an organization's business process maturity [Electronic Version]. Business Process Trends, 2. Retrieved 2008-7-23 from http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/03-04%20NL%20Eval%20BP%20Maturity%20-%20Harmon.pdf
Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105
Hüffner T (2004) The BPM maturity model – towards a framework for assessing the business process management maturity of organisations. GRIN, München, Ravensburg
Hunziker AW (1999) Prozessorganisation in der öffentlichen Verwaltung: New Public Management und Business Reengineering in der schweizerischen Bundesverwaltung. HBLB Karlsruhe, Bern
KBSt -Koordinierungs- und Beratungsstelle der Bundesregierung für Informationstechnik in der Bundesverwaltung. (2005) Domea Concept, Organisational Concept 2.0, Document Management and Electronic Archiving in Electronic Courses of Business (No. 74). Berlin, Bundesministerium des Innern
Lam W (2004) Integration challenges towards increasing E-Government maturity. J E-Gov 1(2):45–59
Layne K, Lee J (2001) Developing fully functional E-government: a four stage model. Gov Inf Q 18(2):122–136
Lenk K, Traunmüller R, Wimmer MA (2002). The significance of law and knowledge for electronic Government. In: Grönlund Å (ed) Electronic government: design, application & management. Hershey et al.: Idea Group, pp 61–77
Luftman J (2000) Assessing Business-IT alignment maturity. Communications of the AIS, 4(Article 14)
OMG (2008) Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) Version 1.0 (No. formal/2008-06-01). Object Management Group, Needham, MA
Palkovits S, Wimmer MA (2003) Processes in E-Government – a holistic framework for modelling electronic public services. In: Traunmüller R (ed) Electronic government: Second International Conference, EGOV 2003, Prague, Czech Republic, September 1–5, 2003, Proceedings, Vol. LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 213–219
Paulk MC, Curtis B, Chrissis MB, Weber CV (1993) Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1 (No. CMU/SEI-93-TR-024). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA
Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manage Inf Syst 24(3):45–77
Rosemann M, de Bruin T (2005) Towards a business process management maturity model. In: Bartmann D, Rajola F, Kallinikos J, Avison D, Winter R, Ein-Dor P, Becker J, Bodendorf F, Weinhardt C (eds) Proceedings of the thirteenth European conference on information systems. Regensburg, Germany, pp 521–532
Rosemann M, vom Brocke J (2010) The six core elements of business process management. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 1. Springer, Heidelberg
Rosemann M, de Bruin T, Power B (2006) BPM Maturity. In: Jeston J, Nelis J (eds) Business Process Management Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations 2nd edn. Butterworth Heinemann, pp 299–315
Rummler GA, Brache AP (1995) Improving performance: how to manage the white space on the organization chart, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Schein EH (1984) Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Manage Rev 25(2):3–16
Shackleton P, Fisher J, Dawson L (2004) Evolution of local government E-Services: the applicability of e-Business maturity models. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04) – Track 5 – Volume 5. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, p. 50120b
Simon HA (1996) The science of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Stamoulis D, Gouscos D, Georgiadis P, Martakos D (2001) Revisiting public information management for effective E-government services. Inform Manage Comput Secur 9(4):146–153
United Nations, & ASPA (2002) Benchmarking E-government: a global perspective – assessing the progress of the UN member states. United Nations, ASPA, New York
vom Brocke J, Petry M, Sinni T, Ästerberg Kristensen B, Sonnenberg C (2010) Global processes and data: The cultural journey at the Hilti corporation. In: vom Brocke J, Rosemann M (eds) Handbook on business process management, vol 2. Springer, Heidelberg
Acknowledgment
This paper presents results from the research project “Prozessorientiertes Verwaltungshandeln durch innovative E-Government-Lösungen” (innoGov, “Using innovative E-Government solutions for process-oriented public administrations”) funded by the European Union (EFRE), Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft des Saarlandes (“Saarland Ministry for Economic and Science”) and the IT-Innovationszentrum Saarland (“Saarland IT Innovation Center”).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zwicker, J., Fettke, P., Loos, P. (2010). Business Process Maturity in Public Administrations. In: vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M. (eds) Handbook on Business Process Management 2. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01982-1_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01982-1_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01981-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01982-1
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)