Journal of Economics and Management

ISSN 1732-1948 Vol. 33 (3) • 2018

Piotr Sliż
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6776-3369
Institute of Organization and Management
Faculty of Management
Gdańsk University, Sopot, Poland
[email protected]

Concept of the organization process maturity assessment

doi: 10.22367/jem.2018.33.05
Accepted by Editor Ewa Ziemba | Received: January 14, 2017 | Revised: March 24, 2018; April 13,
2018; April 19, 2018 | Accepted: April 27, 2018.

Abstract

Aim/purpose – The aim of this article is to present the concept of a multicriteria model
of process maturity assessment (MMPM), which allows to assess the degree of imple-
mentation of process solutions with respect to three dimensions: short-term, long-term
and systemic.
Design/methodology/approach – The characteristics of the model presented in the
article was preceded by a review of the literature and the analysis of secondary research
related to the assessment of the degree of implementation of elements of the process
approach in management.
Findings – As a result of the review of the literature and the analysis of secondary re-search,
a thesis was formulated that quantitative research using the existing methodolo-gies for iden-
tifying the implementation of a process approach in management is insuffi-cient in the pre-
cise assessment of the organization’s process maturity. This means that they should be ex-
tended to include qualitative research. The solution to this problem may be the use of a multi-
dimensional model of process maturity assessment of the organization.
Research implications/limitations – The application of MMPM makes it possible to
assess the degree of implementation of the process approach elements using the opinion
poll method. This means that the results may be subject to random or non-random errors,
depending on the selection technique of the research sample. At this point, it should also
be emphasized that in order to provide a precision assessment of process maturity using
the MMPM, the questions in the questionnaire should be adapted to the specifics of the
area under examination.
Originality/value/contribution – The scope of this article fills in the research gap that
exists in terms of assessing the process maturity of the organization in the long run,
understood as defining the direction of development, stagnation or atrophy of implemen-
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 81

tation of process solutions in the organization. The concept of the MMPM presented in the
article makes it possible to assess process maturity in three dimensions: short-term, long-term
and system-based. In addition, the structure of the model enables the reconfiguration of the
research questionnaire with questions of a self-reinforcing character by the respondent to
questions, enabling the assessment of the level of maturity on the basis of symptoms.

Keywords: process management, process approach, process maturity, evaluation of

process maturity, MMPM.
JEL Classification: M21, O3.

1. Introduction

The literature on the subject presents the thesis about too many available
models of process maturity assessment of the organization (de Bruin, Rosemann,
Freeze, & Kulkarni, 2005; Pöppelbuß & Röglinger, 2011). This should be under-
stood as ongoing criticism over the essence of models of maturity, as the patterns
characterizing the course of reconfiguration of the organization step by step from
the functional into process one with too much simplification of reality (McCor-
mack et al., 2009). More precisely, in the author’s opinion, models of process
maturity described in the literature are of universal nature. Two premises stood
behind such a formulated the-sis. The first one concerned the limited ability of
models to configure assessment criteria taking into account the specificity of
functioning of the examined organizations. The second one concerned the inabil-
ity to conduct a detailed analysis of the selected areas of functioning of the ex-
amined objects in the system dimension.
Moreover, in a large number of characterized empirical studies on the proc-
ess maturity of the organization, the use of opinion polls in assessing the imple-
mentation of process solutions prevails. As a result of the analysis of secondary
research carried out in Poland, it was found that the research questionnaires used
were based on self-assessment questions. These are questions to which the re-
spondent responds in a subjective manner, indirectly assessing the level of im-
plementation of elements of the process approach in the examined organization.
In the described area, one can identify a research gap resulting from too
broad boundaries between individual levels of process maturity in the models
described in the literature. This indicates the lack of possibility of a holistic view
by defining the direction of management activities in the organization. It should
be understood that the use of the MMPM (multicriteria model of process matur-
ity assessment) presented in the article with the use of a survey opinion poll may
result in a more accurate assessment of the current state, as well as the direction
of implementation of the process approach elements in management.
82 Piotr Sliż

The concept of the MMPM presented in the article, unlike the solutions de-
scribed in the literature, enables a flexible reconfiguration of the research tool
(questionnaire) with self-evaluating questions, resulting in subjective assessment
of the respondent’s state of organization’s transformation from functional to
process, to questions that enable the analysis of the maturity level based on the
identified symptoms of implementation of the process solutions. This means that
using a MMPM, using the survey opinion poll method, it is possible to assess the
current state more accurately, as well as the direction of implementation of proc-
ess solutions in management.
The aim of this article is to present the concept of a MMPM, which allows
to assess the degree of implementation of process solutions with respect to three
dimensions: short-term, long-term and systemic.
The first part of the article presents a description of the problem, a research
gap and the research objective of the article. The second point, as a result of
a literature review, the selected models of process maturity were characterized,
and the features showing the process immaturity and maturity of the organiza-
tion were presented on their basis. Next, the research methods used during the
design of the multicriteria model of the organization’s process maturity were
described. The fourth point describes the theoretical assumptions of the pre-
sented model and characterized the criteria for assessing the level of implemen-
tation of process solutions with its use. Subsequently, the symptoms of the im-
plementation of elements of the process approach in management based on the
assumptions of the presented model were synthesized. As a result, the process
maturity levels of the MMPM were characterized, broken down into a short and
long-term dimensions.

2. Literature review

The concept of maturity is polysemantic. This implies the need to clearly

indicate the discipline in which it is operated. In this article, the term of maturity
was defined for the discipline of management sciences. Bearing in mind the
above, maturity is “a measure to evaluate the capabilities of an organization in
regards to a certain discipline” (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). In turn, the level
of the organization’s process maturity identifies the degree to which processes
are formally defined, managed, flexible, measured and effective (Grajewski,
2007, pp. 119-120). More precisely, it is: “the state of the system, in which it the
continuously discounts the benefits of the advancement of the applied process
solutions that is an expression of the modern organization’s aspiration to provide
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 83

itself with the ability to respond to turbulent challenges requiring flexible solu-
tions of the environment” (Grajewski, 2016, p. 125). It has a gradual character,
therefore, its assessment is based on specific patterns, defined in the literature as
evaluation models of the process maturity. In the discussed concept of the
MMPM, the evaluation of the organization’s process maturity is understood as rec-
ognition of the increase in the development of positive features stating the imple-
mentation of the selected elements of the process approach in the organization in the
space from the process-immature organization towards the process-mature organiza-
tion, taking into account the short and long-term dimension.
Table 1 presents a list of features that demonstrate the process maturity and
immaturity of the organization based on the selected models.

Table 1. A summary of the characteristics of the process maturity and immaturity

based on the selected models of the organization’s process maturity
Author/authors Lowest Maturity Level Upmost Maturity Level
1 2 3
Maull, Tranfield Group 1: Organizations are in the Group 5: Organizations use the knowledge
& Maull (2003) early phase of business process reen- gained from BPR projects to re-engineer the
gineering (BPR) project planning whole business
Fisher (2004) Siloed: Individual groups work to Intelligent Operating Network: Optimal
optimize their own piece of the efficiency throughout the end-to-end value
organization. Information tends to be chain and free-flow of real-time information
siloed is achieved.
Rosemann Initial State: Attempts towards Optimized: BPM is core part of both strategic
& de Bruin, (2005); BPM are non-existent or very and operational management within
Rosemann, uncoordinated and unstructured the organization.
de Bruin, Power, (ad-hoc, individual efforts).
(2006)
Hammer (2007) P-1/E-1 (examples): The process has P-4/E-4 (examples): Process design fits with
not been designed on an end-to-end customer and supplier processes. Modular IT
basis. Fragmented legacy IT systems architecture exists
support the process
Lee, Lee, Initial: Processes are managed Optimizing: Processes are proactively
& Kang, (2007) in an ad-hoc manner monitored and controlled. Process perform-
ance data is systematically used for improve-
ments
Rohloff (2009) Beginning Processes are not defined. Optimization
Success depends on specialists. Processes are systematically analyzed,
Parameters, such as schedule, optimized and adapter to market
quality and costs are not orecasted requirements. Modern management methods,
such as benchmarking, are used
84 Piotr Sliż

Table 1 cont.
1 2 3
Grajewski (2007) The process immature organization. Process mature organization
Improvisation of processes by The ability to build and improve a product
employees and managers. Reaction and/or service is a feature of the organization,
management (short-term response to not individual employees. Processes are fully
emerging crises). Scheduling and identified, and knowledge about them is
budget are usually exceeded because effectively passed on to employees. Works
they are not based on stable processes. relate to the design of processes are planned.
With unchangeable constraints on Processes are observed and improved also by
the schedule and budget, they are means of controlled experiments an analysis
enforced at the expense of the quality of the cost-to-effect relationship. The division
and functionality of the product or of roles and responsibilities is clearly defined
service. There are no formalized and within the organization and individual
objective criteria for product, quality projects. The quality of products and/or
or process evaluation and early identi- services as well as the degree of customer
fication problems satisfaction are monitored

Sliż (2016a) Level 1. The organization is task- Level 5. Modern management methods are
-oriented. It does not use the ‘process’ used in the assessment and implementation
term. The desired role of the of processes. Process optimization is based
employee in the organization is to on computer simulation. Changes come from
perform the assigned tasks, so that the all employees and are carried out during the
implementation of the processes process. The customer’s requirements are the
depends primarily on the creativity of change stimulator. Knowledge is treated as
the employee. Employees’ awareness a resource and is transferred in a planned way.
is focused on function and depart- The internal supplier is evaluated by
ments. Employee training is not a structured and optimized set of meters.
implemented or realized only in the Market relations are at the junction between
top-down manner. Training is treated departments
as part of employees’ motivation
system. Processes are not identified
or measured
Source: Adapted from: Röglinger, Pöppelbuβ, & Becker (2012).

In the literature on the subject, the patterns that enable the evaluation of the
degree are defined as the evaluation models of process maturity. The authors of
the selected solutions should include, among others: Maull, Tranfield, & Maull,
(2003, pp. 596-624), Fisher (2004, pp. 11-15), Rosemann & de Bruin (2005),
Hammer (2007), Lee, Lee, & Kang, (2007, pp. 384-39), Rohloff (2009, pp. 128-
142), Grajewski (2016, pp. 122) and Sliż (2016a, pp. 534-525).
Not without significance is the fact that their number may cause that the se-
lection of the appropriate model in the practical application is complicated, be-
cause it requires the analysis of the operating conditions of an organization, in-
cluding in particular the evaluation of application strategies that can be
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 85

implemented. In addition, as a result of the review of the subject literature, dif-

ferent assessment criteria for individual levels of process maturity were found.
This means that in the analysis of the results of research related to the assess-
ment of the process’s maturity, using the model characterized in tab. 1, the char-
acteristics of individual levels of maturity should be studied in detail.

3. Research methodology

The review of literature and secondary research on organization’s process

maturity evaluation constituted grounds for the careful analysis and assessment
of organization’s process approach symptoms. The concept of the MMPM proc-
ess maturity evaluation proposed in the article concerns the descriptive model
(Becker, Knackstedt, & Pöppelbuß, 2009). During the course of conceptual
works on the MMPM presented in the article, the focus was on the analysis of
the process maturity models available in the literature on the most frequently
cited foreign articles and post-conference studies. This means that the literature
review was carried out after choosing such keywords as: process approach in
management, process management, organizational process maturity models,
improvement of business processes, determinants of the process organization.
In addition, the presented MMPM was designed based on the analysis of secon-
dary studies characterized in the literature and empirical proceedings on the as-
sessment of process maturity of the organization, carried out by the author.

4. Research findings and discussion

4.1. Theoretical assumptions of the multicriteria evaluation model of

the process maturity

The multidimensionality of the MMPM is related to the possibility of as-

sessing the organization in three dimensions: short-term, long-term and sys-
temic. At this point, it must be emphasized that the first two classify the organi-
zations with regard to the temporal scope, while the third is the material scope.
The short-term dimension concerns the evaluation of the degree of implementa-
tion of the process approach elements in management on a five-level scale. The
levels were marked as: L1 – functional organization showing weak symptoms of
the process approach, L2 – identified and formalized processes, L3 – measured
processes, L4 – managed processes and L5, the highest level – improved proc-
esses. The second dimension is closely integrated with the short-term dimension.
86 Piotr Sliż

For each of the five levels, three dimensions have been assigned to assess the proc-
ess maturity in the long-term perspective. They are: development in the implementa-
tion of determinants of the process organization, stagnation, identified as staying on
the current level and atrophy, understood as the cessation of the implementation of
process solutions and orientation towards a functional approach in management.
Tabel 2 characterizes the exemplary notation of dimension for the fifth, highest level
of process maturity expanded by long-term labelling.

Table 2. Characteristics of system features assessed in the in the multidimensional

organization process maturity assessment
Short-term Long-term Characteristics of the short-term
Short- and long-term designations
designations designations dimension
L5 A+ L5 A+ Development
L5 A L5 A Stagnation
L5 A- L5 A- Atrophy
Source: Author’s own study.

In turn, Table 2 presents the characteristics of the third dimension, which

were the systemic features. The following were qualified: specialization, hierar-
chy, centralization and formalization1. The decision on their selection was condi-
tioned by the adaptation of the examined characteristics to the assessment of the
organization’s development towards the implementation of process solutions. It
should be understood that the omission of the standardization feature as one of
the so-called Astonian dimensions was purposeful. It has been assumed that
standardization concerns the unification of ways of acting, which in turn may
lead to the process procedure completion. At the same time, the author realizes
that in business practice, when designing system solutions and processes, the
existence of a certain level of standardization should be considered (Trocki,
2004, p. 64). More precisely, “choosing the level of standardization appropriate
for the given organization is not an easy matter and requires rethinking the con-
sequences of such a decision. It is important to take into account the space be-
tween the system of operation of the processes resembling the detailed proce-
dures limited by time, space and implementation conditions […] and design or
consulting companies, where the level of standardization […] should be very
low” (Grajewski, 2012, p. 65). At this point, it should be emphasized that the
area of process standardization has been included in the characteristic features of
formalization (Table 3).

1
According to other researchers, Biazzo & Bernardi (2003, pp. 154-156), the process approach
should be implemented in the areas of four structures. The following were qualified: process ar-
chitecture, process visualization, monitoring and improvement mechanisms.
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 87

Table 3. Characteristics of system features assessed in the in the multidimensional

organization process maturity assessment
System Characteristics for the functionally Characteristics for the process-managed
feature manager organization organization
The separated functions as the basis Economic processes as the basis for creating
for grouping cells. Improving skills interdisciplinary teams. Improving
Specialization
within unified operations with limited interdisciplinary implementation skills.
impact range
Formal authority, multi-level. Dominance of horizontal relationships over
Dominance of power relations and hierarchical ones. The owner of the process
cooperation. Real responsibility replaces the current functional manager.
Hierarchy
hard to determine Responsibility for the actual results of the
work, the degree of meeting the needs
(customer satisfaction)
Decision powers relate to the formal Delegating permissions on process managers.
hierarchical position. The picture of Independence of contractors in creating the
Centralization
the whole is obtained at the top of structure of processes
the pyramid of power
Employees’ activity focused on Employees’ activity aimed at seeking effective
activities consistent with top-down implementation procedures. The method of
Formalization procedures. Relatively long petrification operation adapter to the client’s expectations
of principles of operation, associated
with a large expense of change
Source: Adapted from: Grajewski (2016, p. 169).

The application of the MMPM to the implementation of methodological

and utilitarian objectives has been characterized in three variants. The first one –
simplified, consisting in assessing the process maturity of the organization only
in the short-term dimension, the second one – periodic, used for the analysis
using the short and long-term dimension, and the third one – holistic, requiring
a holistic view of the organization from the perspective of the three dimensions
described. At this point, it must be emphasized that the condition for using each
of the mentioned variants is the use of a research questionnaire designed to as-
sess the degree of implementation of process solutions in the organization based
on the symptoms of processing.
The proposed MMPM has three functions:
1. Evaluating – allowing analysis of the organization in three characterized di-
mensions, according to reference criteria, for each level of process maturity.
2. Comparing – allowing comparison of the degree of implementation of ele-
ments of the process approach in management, in the short-term, long-term
and system dimension, of a group of studied objects.
88 Piotr Sliż

3. Perfecting – regarding the assessment of the real-world system dimension

and the selection of the appropriate strategy for the transformation of a func-
tional organization into a process one.
Four layers were included in the characteristics of the theoretical assump-
tions of the MMPM. They were specified on the basis of the division formulated
by Flieger (2016, pp. 171-179). They were the selected layers: subjective, objec-
tive, regulatory and process documentation. The first one was described taking
into account the object of building the structure of the process organization,
identified as a team. It is understood as “a small number of people with comple-
mentary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance
goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable”
(Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 112), replacing the classical organizational
forms, that included the departments, branches and sections. The second layer,
objective one, was formulated on the basis of the division of processing accord-
ing to the criterion of the hierarchy. They were: mega processes, management
processes, auxiliary processes (Dangel, 1994, pp. 31-34) and multi-processes
(Sliż, 2016b, pp. 325-328). The third layer, the regulatory one, has been identi-
fied as the area to which general binding law regulations, organization develop-
ment strategies and the statutes and regulations of the organization were quali-
fied (Flieger, 2016, pp. 176-177). The last, fourth layer, concerned the area of
process documentation, to which the following were selected: process flow
charts, process effectiveness assessment sheets, control charts, process im-
provement procedures in the organization, as well as training and personnel de-
velopment procedures.

4.2. Characteristics of criteria for adaptation of the process approach

in the organization on the example in the multidimensional
organization process maturity assessment model

When starting to assess the process maturity of an organization using the

MMPM, evaluation criteria should be formulated. It consists in assigning points
in the research questionnaire to each response. The five-level rank of points in
the Z = <1;5> range was used to assess the responses in the research question-
naire. This means that the five-degree Likert scale was used to assess the sever-
ity of the symptoms of implementation of process solutions. At this point, it
should be emphasized that extreme values: the number of 1 points means that the
element does not appear in the examined parameter, while the number of
5 points, the highest one, indicates that the tested element occurs in the tested
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 89

parameter in full dimension. In summary, the number of points was assigned to

each answer in the questionnaire. After adding it to each level, it is possible to
identify the level of maturity in the short- and long-term dimension.
In order for the organization to aspire to the second level of maturity, it is
necessary to confirm the symptoms indicating the identification of mega proc-
esses (basic, central processes) and auxiliary processes in the organization, their
formalization in the form of process maps and operating the correctly defined
concept of the ‘process’. Additionally, it should be noted that in achieving the L1
E+ level, the management decision concerning the implementation of the quality
management system (QMS) is a favorable factor, resulting from the internal
needs of the organization. In addition, the first level, in the L1 E- and L1 E di-
mensions, in accordance with the adopted theoretical assumptions of the
MMPM, is the state in which the organization shows a poor process pre-
orientation. The L1 E+ dimension is noteworthy. Because, according to the as-
sumptions made, the organization in this dimension is characterized by symp-
toms indicating the initiation of activities aimed at implementing a process ap-
proach in management. This is a condition in which key criteria have not been
met, but there are indications that they will be achieved in the future.
In turn, achieving the third level, according to the characterized assump-
tions of the MMPM, requires meeting at least three criteria for the second level
and the following three criteria that enable the adaptation to the third level. They
were: a formula of employee participation in the implementation of management
activities focused on the results and measurement of the identified mega proc-
esses and auxiliary processes. At this point, it should be emphasized that the
assumed level requires structural changes based on the clear role of the leader,
managing the intellectual potential of employees and the transfer of knowledge
between staff.
In the perspective of the organization’s adaptation to the fourth level, an impor-
tant aspect includes the nature of applied management actions and organizational
culture, oriented on improvements initiated and implemented by all members of the
organization, in particular interdisciplinary teams of employees, functioning
throughout the organization and focused on solving problems when they occur.
Achievement of the fifth, highest level of maturity, by the organization is de-
termined by the confirmation of symptoms characteristic of the state in which the
management of identified, formalized and metered processes is so dynamic that it
enables their continuous improvement. Achieving the fifth level of process maturity
is possible by confirming the existence of elements confirming the functioning
of intra-market relationships in the implementation of the organization.
90 Piotr Sliż

4.3. Synthesis of the organization’s process maturity evaluation

in the multidimensional organization process maturity
assessment model

Table 4 cited markings of the level of process maturity, including short- and
long-term dimensions, and characterized individual levels and the attributed
long-term dimensions. At this point, it should be noted that the levels in Table 4 were
ranked according to the level of implementation of the elements of the process ap-
proach in the management from the highest (L5) to the lowest one (L1).

Table 4. Characterization of levels and dimensions of process maturity in the short

and long-term in the multidimensional organization process maturity assessment
Marking
the process
Process maturity level characteristics for the long-term dimension
maturity
level
1 2
The process organization, in which all the specified criteria were met, demonstrating the
correctly identified, formalized and metered process architecture. In the long-term dimension,
the organization is characterized by the improvement of the metered and manager processes,
L5 A+
using management methods, IT tools and innovative, original solutions. Organization,
as a result of measurements of processes and improvements generated by all members of the
organization, is looking for a new space in which the value added can be generated
Process management is based on the results of the designed measurement system. Based
L5 A on the analysis of the process effect, corrective actions are taken to continuously improve
processes based on the client’s requirements, in external and internal terms
Despite the attempts to improve manager processes, there are no symptoms indicating
L5 A−
the search for newer generation solutions
Decision-makers and stakeholders in the organization make decisions related to the optimiza-
L4 B+ tion and dynamization of the managed processes. The organization focuses on searching
for new solutions resulting from an attempt to flexibly influence external impulses
The identified and formalized processes are metered. Management decisions are focused
on the effect of the process. The external and internal training system facilitates the transfer
L4 B of knowledge between employees. A desirable role of the leader is to manage the diffusion
of knowledge in the established, interdisciplinary teams oriented on the implementation
of tasks and solving problems in the space of the entire organization
The measures applied primarily concern the assessment of mega processes (main and central
processes). There are no decisions regarding the reconfiguration of the system of meters for
L4 B− all identified processes. Functional managers are responsible for coordinating tasks in the
subordinate division. In the long term, the organization exhibits symptoms characteristic
of the P3 level
In organizations, management decisions are focused on results. This means that the organiza-
L3 C+
tion attempts to synergize the measurement result in making management decisions
Most of the identified processes in the organization are formalized. The trainings are carried
out in accordance with the plan determined in advance (e.g., by the grantor). The lack of
L3 C
symptoms indicating the implementation of internal training. The defined state of the process
architecture is metered
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 91

Table 4 cont.
1 2
The developed system of measures mainly concerns the measurement of mega processes.
Measurements are made for the needs of the top decisions (e.g., the grantor). Training is the
L3 C−
motivational element of an employee. Their implementation does not support the exchange
of views and development of the employees’ competences
As a result of the formalized infrastructure of all identified processes, decisions are made
L2 D+ regarding measurement of the selected processes in the organization. The simultaneous
orientation towards the tasks and results prevents the overall measurement of all processes
The organization uses the term ‘process’ correctly. This means that it is understood as
a repetitive sequence of sequentially implemented actions which aim is to generate the added
L2 D
value. Only mega processes and some auxiliary processes are identified in the organization.
This also applies to the formalization of processes in the form of maps
The organization uses the concept of the process, but it is identified incorrectly. It is often
L2 D− identified with the procedure, standard or task. Despite the identification and formalization of
mega processes (or main processes), the orientation of management actions is focused on tasks
The organization is looking for new solutions in the field of management approach. The
dominant functional management formula directs it towards functions and tasks. In the long-
L1 E+ -term dimension, there are measures to move away from the classical form of management
through the bottom implementation of the quality management system, e.g., ISO, resulting
from the internal needs of the organization.
The organization has insignificant features of the implementation of the process approach.
L1 E No identified factors that could change the orientation of the management approach in future
management activities
An organization with strongly dominant elements of a functional approach in management.
A multi-level hierarchical structure prevents horizontal pre-orientation. In the long-term
L1 E−
dimension, there are no single symptoms that could indicate a change in orientation
in management. The organization does not use the concept of a process
Source: Author’s own study.

In summary, the organization cannot reach the next level of maturity if it does
not meet the minimum criteria of the previous level. This means that the examined
unit, which will obtain the number of points qualifying to the third level, and does
not meet the minimum requirements of level two, will be assigned to the second
level for which it meets the minimum criteria. It should be understood that the score
classifying the organization in the short and long-term dimension was calculated
independently for each level. This means that the sum of all points obtained in the
quantitative survey does not rank the organization to a certain level.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Research contribution

Functional approach, based on multi-segment, hierarchical structure, fo-

cused on employee’s proficiency in fulfilment of strictly defined assigned tasks
and responsibilities appears to be an overwhelming majority due to secondary
92 Piotr Sliż

research on the implementation of process approach in Polish organizations (Cy-

fert, 2009, p. 168). For both researchers and practitioners, it can indicate neces-
sity of modern solutions’ and tools’ in process approach monitoring from the
broader perspective, as regards creating new organizations. This leads to the
conclusion that businesses, which undertook attempt of their internal structures’
transformation, had to manage the structure referred to as two-speed structure
perceived as the co-existence of process and functional sections. The foregoing
statement applies to assumption, according to which studied units have been
developed on the basis of classical approach of management. At the time of
transformation from organization at the first, second and third level of process
into process organizations at level fourth and fifth, deactivation of two parallel
organizational structures is required. Therefore, implementation of the process
approach in management requires simultaneous decline of functional approach
components. Herein, it should be stressed that knowledge on both approaches in
management and forms that combines them, so called indirect forms in use of
multidimensional maturity assessment model, may pre-eminently initiate crea-
tion of new knowledge concerning organization’s operation in the transitional
phase. Therefore, evaluation of the broader scope of issues, that means both analysis
of the organization’s operating direction in a long-term and management decisions’
review, is required apart from the evaluation of current (short-term) process ap-
proach implementation phase. Precise determination of organization’s maturity
process may also provide knowledge on type and increase of tensions arising be-
tween two different management concepts: functional and process-based.

5.2. Research implication

The proposed MMPM, in addition to the possibility of evaluating a selected

organization or a specific population of subjects, may prove to be a helpful took
for practitioners in the awareness of both the current state of implementation of
process elements, as well as the search for alternatives to the functional approach
to the solutions proposed in this article. This means that it performs the evalua-
tion, comparative and improvement functions.
Considering the problem of the strategy of adaptation of elements of the
process approach in management based on the presented multicriteria MMPM,
the key areas, from the perspective of the long-term evaluation, are the dimen-
sions indicating the organization’s development towards achieving higher levels.
The construction of the MMPM allows its replication after the prior adjustment
of the selected areas of the study to the specifics of the studied area. In addition,
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 93

organizations that want to discount conclusions from their own research and the
assumptions of the proposed model, may use the formulated assessment criteria
to select the appropriate organization strategy in the implementation of elements
of the process approach, which atrophying the functional management elements.
Then, in an independent manner, they will be able to identify the current level of
process maturity and determine the intensification of process elements in a long-
term perspective.

5.3. Research limitation and future works

Assessment of process maturity using the MMPM presented in the article
assumes the use of the opinion poll method. Bearing in mind the above, it is
necessary to emphasize the limitations resulting from its use and the presented
model. They are related to the risks associated with the technique of sampling
and random or non-random errors. In addition, it should be noted that in order to
accurately assess the level of implementation of process solutions in the organi-
zation or group of objects under study, the research questionnaire should be
adapted to the specifics of the organization sector under examination. The pre-
sented concept of a multicriteria model of process maturity will be used by the
author during the implementation of empirical research on process maturity of
the organization. To this end, the author attempted to evaluate the degree of im-
plementation of process solutions, using the model presented in this article, on
the example of a random sample of 350 contemporary organizations in Poland.

References

Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pöppelbuß, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT
management – a procedure model and its application. Business & Information Sys-
tems Engineering, 1(3), 213-222. doi: 10.1007/11576-009-0167-9
Biazzo, S., & Bernardi, G. (2003). Process management practices and quality systems
standards: Risks and opportunities of the new ISO 9001 certification. Business
Process Management Journal, 9(2), 149-169. doi: 10.1108/14637150310468371
de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., & Kulkarni, U. (2005). Understanding the main
phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In B. Campbell, J. Underwood,
& D. Bunker (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Information
Systems (ACIS), Sydney, Australia (pp. 8-19). Sydney: Australasian Chapter of the
Association for Information Systems.
Cyfert, S. (2009). Metody podnoszenia efektywności procesów w polskich przedsię-
biorstwach-ograniczenia i kierunki zmian [Methods of process improvement ap-
plied in polish enterprises – limitations and directions of developing]. Research
Papers of the Wroclaw University of Economics, 52, 162-169.
94 Piotr Sliż

Dangel, J. W. (1994). Business Process Reengineering: radikale Umgestaltung von

Geschaftsprozessen. Management Zeitschrift Industrielle Organisation, 63(5), 31-33.
Fisher, D. M. (2004). The business process maturity model: A practical approach for
identifying opportunities for optimization. Business Process Trends, 9(4), 11-15.
Flieger, M. (2016). Zarządzanie procesowe w urzędach gmin. Model adaptacji kryteriów
dojrzałości procesowej [Process management in the local offices. Model of adapta-
tion of the process maturity criteria]. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Grajewski, P. (2007). Organizacja procesowa [A process-oriented organization]. War-
szawa: PWE.
Grajewski, P. (2012). Procesowe zarządzanie organizacją [A process-oriented organisa-
tional management]. Warszawa: PWE.
Grajewski, P. (2016). Organizacja procesowa [A process-oriented organization] (2nd ed.).
Warszawa: PWE.
Hammer, M. (2007). The process audit. Harvard Business Review, 85(4), 111-143.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business
Press, 71(2), 111-120.
Lee, J., Lee, D., & Kang, S. (2007). An overview of the business process maturity model
(BPMM). In H. Shan, & J. China (Eds.), Advances in web and network technolo-
gies, and information management (Vol. 4537, pp. 384-395). Berlin: Springer. doi:
10.1007/978-3-540-72909-9_42
Maull, R. S., Tranfield, D. R., & Maull, W. (2003). Factors characterising the maturity
of BPR programmes. International Journal of Operations & Production Manage-
ment, 23(6), 596-624. doi: 10.1108/01443570310476645
McCormack, K., Willems, J., van den Bergh, J., Deschoolmeester, D., Willaert, P., Stember-
ger, M. I., Skrinjar, R., Trkman, P., Ladeira, M. B., Valadares de Oliveira, M. P., Vuk-
sic, V. B., & Vlahovic, N. (2009). A global investigation of key turning points in busi-
ness process maturity. Business Process Management Journal, 15(5), 792-815. doi:
10.1108/14637150910987946
Pöppelbuß, J., & Röglinger, M. (2011, June). What makes a useful maturity model?
A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstra-
tion in business process management. Proceedings of the Nineteenth European
Conference on Information Systems University of Münster, Germany. Retrieved
from https://fim-rc.de/Paperbibliothek/Veroeffentlicht/327/wi-327.pdf
Rohloff, M. (2009). Case study and maturity model for business process management
implementation. In U. Dayal, J. Eder, J. Koehler, & H. A. Reijers (Eds.), Business
Process Management. BPM 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5701,
pp. 128-142). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-03848-8_10
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
Rosemann, M., & de Bruin, T. (2005, May). Towards a business process management
maturity model. In D. Bartmann, F. Rajola, J. Kallinikos, D. Avison, R. Winter,
P. Ein-Dor, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Informa-
tion Systems, Regensburg, Germany. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/
25194/1/25194_rosemann_2006001488.pdf
 Concept of the organization process maturity assessment 95

Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T., & Power, B. (2006) A model to measure business process
management and improve performance. In J. Jeston, & J. Nelis (Eds.), Business
process management (Vol. 27, pp. 299-315). London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sliż, P. (2016a). Dojrzałość procesowa organizacji – wyniki badań empirycznych [Busi-
ness process maturity – report of empirical research]. Research Papers of the Wro-
claw University of Economics, 421, 530-532.
Sliż, P. (2016b). Rola dojrzałości multiprocesowej sieci w kształtowaniu relacji między-
organizacyjnych – wyniki badań empirycznych [The role of multiprocess maturity
in establishing interorganizational relations – report of empirical studies]. Journal
of Management and Finance, 14(2), 325-336.
Trocki, M. (2004). Standaryzacja procesów a zarządzanie procesowe [Standardization of
processes and process management]. In M. Romanowska, & M. Trocki (Eds.),
Podejście procesowe w zarządzaniu [Process approach in management] (Vol. 1).
Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics.
Copyright of Journal of Economics & Management is the property of University of
Economics in Katowice and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.