Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 601

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Maturity models in business process management

Röglinger, Maximilian, Pöppelbuß, Jens, Becker, Jörg·2012·Business Process Management Journal

Abstract

Purpose: Maturity models are a prospering approach to improving a company's processes and business process management (BPM) capabilities. In fact, the number of corresponding maturity models is so high that practitioners and scholars run the risk of losing track. This paper therefore aims to provide a systematic in‐depth review of BPM maturity models. Design/methodology/approach: The paper follows the accepted research process for literature reviews. It analyzes a sample of ten BPM maturity models according to a framework of general design principles. The framework particularly focuses on the applicability and usefulness of maturity models. Findings: The analyzed maturity models sufficiently address basic design principles as well as principles for a descriptive purpose of use. The design principles for a prescriptive use, however, are hardly met. Thus, BPM maturity models provide limited guidance for identifying desirable maturity levels and for implementing improvement measures. Research limitations/implications: The authors are confident that this review covers the majority of publicly available BPM maturity models. As the number of corresponding maturity models seems to be constantly growing, exhaustiveness can hardly be guaranteed. The study's results stimulate future research. Inter alia, adopters from industry require more elaborate support by means of ready‐to‐use and adaptable instruments for maturity assessment and improvement. The paper also reaffirms the need for maturity model consolidation in the field of BPM. Originality/value: As existing literature reviews focus on process improvement or BPM in general, the paper's findings extend current knowledge. They also increase transparency. Its results provide guidance for scholars and practitioners involved in the design, enhancement, or application of BPM maturity models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/14637151211225225

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 601

Metadata

Authors
Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., & Becker, J.
Venue
Business Process Management Journal
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2012-04-13
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
328-346
ISSN
1463-7154 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070640624
Cited by
601
References
4
FWCI
60.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.