=Paper= {{Paper |id=None |storemode=property |title=Which Maturity Is Being Measured? A Classification of Business Process Maturity Models |pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-662/paper_4.pdf |volume=Vol-662 |dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eis/LooyBP10 }} ==Which Maturity Is Being Measured? A Classification of Business Process Maturity Models== https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-662/paper_4.pdf

5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

Which Maturity Is Being Measured?
A Classification of Business Process Maturity Models

Amy Van Looy1,2, Manu De Backer1,2,3,4, Geert Poels2
1
University College Ghent, Department of Management & Informatics,
Voskenslaan 270, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
{amy.vanlooy, manu.debacker}@hogent.be
2
Ghent University, Department of Management Information Science & Operations
Management, Tweekerkenstraat 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
{Amy.VanLooy, Manu.DeBacker, Geert.Poels}@UGent.be
3
University of Antwerp, Department of Management Information Systems,
Prinsstraat 13, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium
{Manu.DeBacker}@ua.ac.be
4
K.U.Leuven, Department of Management Informatics,
Naamsestraat 69, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
{Manu.DeBacker}@econ.kuleuven.be

Abstract. Today‟s organizations face the challenge to excel due to demanding
customers. Hence, they are relying on their business processes to outperform
competitors. Maturity models have been proposed to gradually assess and
improve business processes. However, the proliferation of business process
maturity models has complicated the practitioner‟s choice. This article clarifies
the foundation of business process maturity and presents a classification of
maturity models. First, a literature study was conducted, based on the concepts
of business process (BP), business process management (BPM), and business
process orientation (BPO), to identify the different capabilities to be addressed
by a business process maturity model: (1) modeling, (2) deployment, (3)
optimization, (4) management, (5) culture, and (6) structure. Afterwards, these
capabilities were used to compare and classify 61 business process maturity
models. The main result is that we found six different types of maturity being
measured by the currently proposed maturity models.

Keywords: business process maturity, business process management, business
process orientation

1 Introduction

As the growing globalized market is characterized by demanding customers,
organizations are striving to excel in order to gain competitive advantage or to
outperform competitors in their societal obligations. Hence, organizations are
increasingly focusing on their business processes [1]. Business process management
is expected to contribute to both process excellence and business excellence by
assuring a uniform way of working and by continuously looking for optimizations [2].

7
Proceedings

Nonetheless, the journey towards process excellence is challenging. As a result,
various authors have proposed step by step road maps with best practices, from which
organizations gradually benefit [3,4,5,6]. These road maps are called business process
maturity models (BPMMs). They are evolutionary models for measuring (AS-IS) and
improving (TO-BE) maturity, or „the extent to which an organization consistently
implements processes within a defined scope that contributes to the achievement of its
business goals‟ [7, p.2]. Maturity aims at systematically increasing the capabilities of
a business process and the organization to deliver higher performance over time [6,8].
Given the importance of mature business processes, a proliferation of maturity
models was realized during the recent decades [9]. It started with frameworks to deal
with the software crisis during the 1970s-1980s, and which have been adapted to all
types of business processes afterwards. At present, maturity models for specific
business processes are integrated into single models [7,10,11], and new models have
been designed for generic business processes [12]. Consequently, this proliferation of
BPMMs prompts us to evaluate their content. For this purpose, the present study aims
at providing a foundation for business process maturity, grounded in the business
process literature, instead of rebuilding on existing BPMMs. We theoretically explore
the capabilities to be addressed by a generic BPMM in the first research question:
(1) which capabilities, i.e., theoretical model components, must be assessed and
improved to increase the maturity of a business process?
However, we do not assume that every BPMM actually has a model component for
each capability found by the previous question. This leads us to the second research
question:
(2) can the BPMMs be classified by the capabilities they actually address? If so,
are there different types of maturity being measured?
Both research questions contribute to the BPMM literature, without presenting a new
model. They clarify the BPMM fundamentals and a classification to support
practitioners while choosing a model that best fits the organizational needs.
The subsequent section deals with the methodology. Next, the research results are
presented (section 3) and discussed (section 4). Afterwards, section 5 explains the
plans for future work. The last section concludes by summarizing the BPMM
components and the resulting BPMM classification with possible maturity types.

2 Methodology

The research approach was twofold: (1) a literature study to identify the capabilities to
be addressed, and (2) a comparative study to classify the existing BPMMs.

2.1 Identification of Theoretical BPMM Components: Literature Study

A BPMM assesses and improves a business process throughout its lifecycle by
focusing on the necessary capabilities to perform. Hence, the model components of a
BPMM must affect business process performance. In order to identify the theoretical
model components, we relied on the extensive literature concerning business
processes, which findings have been repeatedly corroborated by evidence.

8
5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

It resulted in three comprehensive concepts, which are closely linked to the
traditional business process lifecycles [13]: (1) business process (BP), (2) business
process management (BPM), and (3) business process orientation (BPO). Their
respective definitions clarified the differences between the concepts and indicated the
theoretical BPMM components, i.e., the capabilities to be addressed. These
components are also supported by theories on critical success factors for BP, e.g. [14].

2.2 BPMM Classification: Comparative Study

The theoretical components, previously found, were validated by collecting existing
BPMMs. After mapping their content to the components, a classification was derived
to determine the type of maturity being measured per model.
The research scope was set to generic business processes. It excludes BPMMs
addressing specific process types, such as in the initial software engineering maturity
models. However, models that integrate various specific BPMMs were withheld to
represent those specific topics. Also supply chain maturity models were selected to
study cross-organizational value chains.
Data was collected during the second quarter of 2010. First, we searched for
articles in academic databases and search engines on the Internet by using the
combined keywords of „process‟ and „maturity‟. Secondly, we traced the references in
the identified articles to get access to other relevant sources.
We acknowledge some restrictions regarding the accessibility of articles (in Ghent
University engines), the language (English, Dutch, French or German), and the
keywords. Notwithstanding these limitations, the technique turned out to be fruitful in
terms of the number of maturity models identified.

3 Results

The research results are discussed by following the same structure as the methodology
section. Each subsection deals with a distinct research question.

3.1 Identification of Theoretical BPMM Components

Most definitions of BP refer to a transformation taking place, also illustrated as a
value chain. They frequently mention: (1) predictable and definable inputs, (2) a
linear, logical sequence or flow, (3) a set of definable and interrelated activities, (4)
predictable and desired outputs, (5) horizontal or cross-departmental, (6) performed
by resources, (7) repeatable, and (8) adding value for customers [15,16]. For instance,
Harrington‟s definition sounds: ‘a process is a series of interconnected activities that
takes input, adds value to it, and produces output. It’s how organizations work their
day-to-day routines. Your organization’s processes define how it operates’ [1, p.xxii].
This transformational view originates from manufacturing, and is less clear in service
delivery. Hence, other definitions exist which rather emphasize a coordination of
activities, instead of value-adding transformations, e.g. in [17]. Despite these different

9
Proceedings

emphases, all BP definitions focus on business process modeling and deployment. As
a result, both aspects will be used as theoretical model components for BPMMs.
Secondly, BPM involves continuously managing and improving business
processes, guided by process owners. Depending on their background, authors
underline more the IT benefits [18], or the management aspects [19]. Gillot [17],
Gulledge Jr. and Sommer [20] summarize four BPM components: (1) modeling, (2)
deployment, with automation where possible, (3) optimization, or improving business
processes based on real metrics to evaluate business process performance, and (4) the
management of business processes, each with a process owner and a cross-
departmental process team. Similarly to BP, these four components are selected as
theoretical BPMM components. The difference with BP, is that BPM also addresses
managerial aspects and optimization efforts with regard to one or more business
processes.
Some authors go beyond these four BPM components by also referring to
organization management, in particular by adopting a horizontal structure and a
process-oriented culture with rewards linked to the performance of business processes
instead of departments [21]. Even though the distinction between BPM and BPO is
not always explicitly made, e.g. in [6], it allows us to separately examine the different
nuances. It results in a funnel structure of BP, BPM and BPO, as shown in Figure 1.

BPO

Process BPM
structure BP
Management Deployment

Process
Optimization Modeling
culture

Fig. 1. The funnel structure of components in business process maturity models.

The six theoretical components specify whether BPMMs deal with BP, BPM or BPO.

3.2 BPMM Classification

61 BPMMs have been collected regarding business processes and supply chains:
(1) 37 business process models, of which:
13 academic [1,8,10,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30];
24 non-academic
[2,7,11,12,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50];
(2) 24 supply chain models, of which:
9 academic [51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59];
15 non-academic [60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74].
We have investigated their content in detail, including a mapping to the theoretical
BPMM components. The result is a BPMM classification, as shown in Table 1.

10
5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

Table 1. A classification of business process maturity models.

BPM BPM BPM
for one BP for more BPs for all BPs
(N=3) (N=11) (N=4)
BP academic: [1,24] BP academic: [22] BP academic:
BP non-academic: BP non-academic: [21,27,29]
[40] [7] BP non-academic:
SC academic: [55,58] [31]
SC non-academic:
[60,61,67,68,70,71,
72]
BPO BPO BPO
for one BP for more BPs for all BPs
(N=3) (N=20) (N=22)
BP academic: [8] BP academic: [10,25] BP academic:
BP non-academic: BP non-academic: [8,23,26,28,30]
[36,47] [11,12,38] BP non-academic:
SC academic: [2,32,33,34,35,36,37,
[51,52,53,54,56,57, 39,41,42,43,44,45,
59] 46,48,49,50]
SC non-academic:
[62,63,64,65,66,69,
73,74]

In theory, all BP components are contained in BPM, and all BPM components in
BPO. However, in practice, the lower components are not always present. BPMMs
are classified as BPO if they address “process structure” or “process culture”, and as
BPM if they involve “management” or “optimization” without BPO components.
First, it turned out that no model merely addresses the BP components of
“modeling” and “deployment”. Instead, if present, they are supplemented by at least
one BPM component. Secondly, the models strongly vary on the kind and number of
business processes taken into account. As a result, a refinement in the classification
was made to distinguish three BPMM foci: (1) a focus on one BP, (2) a focus on more
than one, but not necessarily all BPs, and (3) a focus on all BPs in the involved
organization(s) or supply chain (see Table 1). The result is a BPMM classification
with six different types of maturity. It should be noted that some BPMMs offer
multiple maturity types of which a practitioner can choose according to the
organizational needs, for instance limited to a single BP or comprising all BPs [8,36].

4 Discussion

Six findings are drawn from the literature study and the comparative study. The first
three concern the theoretical BPMM components (first research question), whereas
the last three deal with the BPMM classification (second research question).
(1) Component validation. The six theoretical BPMM components, derived from
the business process literature on BP, BPM and BPO, have been empirically validated

11
Proceedings

by comparing existing BPMMs. All actual model components were successfully
mapped to a theoretical equivalent, without detecting new components.
(2) Component coverage. Most BPMMs do not cover all theoretical components,
but three to five of them. All models address both “optimization” and “management”,
except for four models, with [24,72] ignoring “management” and [37,51]
underestimating “optimization”. The “structure” component is often neglected.
(3) IT-enabled components. Although IT is not a prerequisite, the majority
prescribe IT to enable the three lowest components: “modeling” < “optimization” <
“deployment”. The degree varies from general IT, such as mentionning hard- and
software, to specific IT, e.g. EDI, ERP, SOA, SaaS, BPMS, and specific vendor tools.
(4) No BP maturity type. The collected BPMMs demonstrate that merely
improving “modeling” and “deployment” are insufficient to achieve higher maturity
regarding generic business processes, and that “optimization” and “management” are
paramount. For instance, not all business processes need to be fully modeled in
advance, e.g. semi-structured process flows in service delivery. Nonetheless, such a
BPMM may theoretically exist, but restricted to specific business processes, e.g. by
focussing on the workflows of manufacturing processes.
(5) BPM and BPO maturity types. The majority of collected BPMMs measure BPO
maturity, mainly because of process-oriented values, e.g. a client focus, innovation,
empowerment or trust, and the rewards to ensure their realization. Although an
organization-wide perspective fosters higher maturity, it is not included in all models.
Organizations can limit maturity to BPM by assigning a process owner to manage and
statistically track a business process, possibly restricted to a department. Nonetheless,
they won‟t gain all benefits if the process owner has no cross-departmental authority
nor if collaborating departments distrust each other.
(6) Number of BPs. BPMMs can be used to cope with one, more or all business
processes. However, the models for a single business process are less numerous. More
often, they are used in a single business domain with multiple business
(sub)processes, such as software engineering or the supply chain. For instance, the
latter has business processes for buying, producing, selling and planning products and
services. This finding is conform to the idea of a large cross-departmental or cross-
organizational business process, or horizontal value chain, with subprocesses in each
department. Also frequent are BPMMs involving all business processes, which rather
take a management perspective instead of focusing on particular business processes.

5 Future Work

All BPMMs will be further compared with regard to other elements in the assessment
(AS-IS) and improvement (TO-BE) method, such as the lifecycle levels and the road
map. Case studies will be conducted for the most comprehensive models. Above all,
we will explore additional theories on the critical success factors for BP to obtain an
operationalization of each component. Afterwards, we will be able to evaluate
whether a new model design is appropriate for cross-organizational processes, and
what the IT impact may be per component. Interestingly, different tracks may be
identified depending on the organization size, type (products or services) and sector.

12
5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

6 Conclusion

A business process maturity model (BPMM) addresses the capabilities of a business
process and the entire organization, expressed as overall maturity, to deliver higher
performance over time. These capabilities are represented by the BPMM components,
which are systematically assessed and improved. The present study has elaborated on
the theoretical model components to specify what is being measured by a BPMM. It
has compared 61 BPMMs on six theoretical components, found in the business
process literature. The components are linked to the traditional lifecycle of a business
process, supplemented by organizational aspects: (1) modeling, (2) deployment, (3)
optimization, (4) management, (5) culture, and (6) structure. In pairs, they form a
funnel structure, starting from a business process (BP), which is a subset of business
process management (BPM), and which is part of business process orientation (BPO).
However, in practice, BPMMs do not necessarily address all theoretical BPMM
components. Above all, given the proliferation of BPMMs, practitioners may
experience difficulties in choosing a model that best fits the organizational needs. In
order to facilitate this choice, we present a BPMM classification based on two
decisions: (1) which BPMM components are important for the organization (does a
business process management perspective suffice or is an organizational perspective
required?), and (2) which business processes to assess and improve (is there a focus
on one, more or all BPs?). It results in six possible types of maturity: BPM maturity
for one, more or all business processes, and BPO maturity for one, more or all
business processes in the involved organization(s). Evidence has shown that a BP
maturity type, centered around modeling and deployment, does not exist for generic
business processes, as management and optimization are paramount.
In summary, the present study has reached its aim of providing a BPMM
foundation in the BP literature. The six capabilities to be addressed in a generic
BPMM have been identified and validated, as queried by the first research question.
Regarding the second research question, the concept of maturity has been refined by
specifying different maturity types. The resulting BPMM classification is relevant for
both practitioners and academics, and contributes to the rather scarce BPMM
literature. It allows clear communication, with scholars being able to clarify which
dimension of maturity they investigate. New BPMMs may be designed based on the
six theoretical BPMM components. Furthermore, the study challenges the maturity of
maturity models by highlighting different designs, e.g. are BPO models for all BPs
more complete and thus necessarily better than BPM models for one BP? Future
research will focus on the operationalization by organization size, type and sector.

References

1. Harrington, H.J.: Process Management Excellence. The Art of Excelling in Process
Management. Paton Press, California (2006)
2. Tolsma, J., de Wit, D.: Effectief Procesmanagement. Procesgericht Sturen met het BPM
Model. Eburon, Delft (2009)
3. Hüffner, T.: The BPM Maturity Model - Towards a Framework for Assessing the Business
Process Management Maturity of Organizations. GRIN, Munich (2004)

13
Proceedings

4. Lee, J., Lee, D., Kang, S.: An Overview of the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM).
In: Advances in Web and Network Technologies, and Information Management, June 16-
18, Huang Shan, China, pp. 279--288. Springer: Heidelberg (2007)
5. Maier, A.M., Moultrie, J., Clarkson, P.J.: A Review of Maturity Grid based Approaches to
Assessing Organizational Capabilities. In: Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 8-13
August. Academy of Management, California (2008)
6. Rosemann, M., de Bruin, T.: Application of a Holistic Model for Determining BPM
Maturity. BPTrends (February 2005)
7. ISO/IEC: Information Technology - Process Assessment - Part 7: Assessment of
Organizational Maturity - ISO/IEC TR 15504-7:2008(E). ISO/IEC, Geneva (2008)
8. Hammer, M.: The Process Audit. Harvard Business Review (April), 111--123 (2007)
9. Sheard, S.A.: Evolution of the Frameworks Quagmire. IEEEComputer 34(7), 96--98 (2001)
10. SEI: CMMI for Services, Version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute (February 2009),
Online available, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf
11. FAA: FAA-iCMM, Version 2.0, An Integrated Capability Maturity Model for Enterprise-
wide Improvement (2001), Online available,
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aio/
12. OMG: Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) - Version 1.0 (1 June 2008), Online
available, http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMM/1.0/PDF
13. Houy, C., Fettke, P., Loos, P.: Empirical Research in BPM – Analysis of an Emerging Field
of Research. Business Process Management Journal 16(4), 619--661 (2010)
14. Armistead, C., Machin, S.: Implications of BPM for Operations Management. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 17(9), 886--898 (1997)
15. Zairi, M.: Business Process Management: a Bounderyless Approach to Modern
Competitiveness. Business Process Management Journal 3(1), 64--80 (1997)
16. Palmberg, K.: Exploring Process Management: Are There any Widespread Models and
Definitions?. The TQM Journal 21(2), 203--215 (2009)
17. Gillot, J.-N.: The Complete Guide to Business Process Management. Booksurge
Publishing, South Carolina (2008)
18. Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Business Process Management: the Third Wave. Meghan-Kiffer
Press, Tampa (2002, 2006)
19. Lee, R.G., Dale, B.G.: Business Process Management: a Review and Evaluation. Business
Process Management Journal 4(3), 214--225 (1998)
20. Gulledge Jr, T.R., Sommer, R.A.: Business Process Management: Public Sector
Implications. Business Process Management Journal 8(4), 364--376 (2002)
21. McCormack, K., Johnson, W.C.: Business Process Orientation: Gaining the e-Business
Competitive Advantage. St. Lucie Press, Florida (2001)
22. Aouad, G., et al.: Technology Management of IT in Construction: a Driver or an Enabler?.
Logistics Information Management 12(1/2), 130--137 (1999)
23. Pritchard, J.-P., Armistead, C.: Business Process Management - Lessons from European
Business. Business Process Management Journal 5 (1), pp. 10-32 (1999)
24. DeToro, I., McCabe, T.: How to Stay Flexible and Elude Fads. Quality Progress (March),
55--60 (1997)
25. Lee, J., Lee, D., Kang, S.: vPMM: a value based Process Maturity Model. In: Roger, L.,
Gonzu, H., Huaikou, M. (eds) Computer and Information Science 2009, pp. 193--213.
Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
26. Maull, R.S., Tranfield, D.R., Maull, W.: Factors Characterizing the Maturity of BPR
Programmes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23(6), 596--
624 (2003)
27. Rohloff, M.: Case Study and Maturity Model for BPM Implementation. In: 7th
International BPM Conference, September, pp. 128--142. Springer, Ulm (2009)

14
5th SIKS/BENAIS Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

28. de Bruin, T., Rosemann, M.: Using the Delphi Technique to Identify BPM Capability
Areas. In: 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 5-7 December, pp. 642--
653. Toowoomba (2007)
29. Skrinjar, R., Bosilj-Vuksic, V., Stemberger, M.I.: The Impact of Business Process
Orientation on Financial and Non-financial Performance. Business Process Management
Journal 14(5), 738--754 (2008)
30. Willaert, P., et al.: The Process-Oriented Organization: a Holistic View. Developing a
Framework for Business Process Orientation Maturity. In: 5th International Conference on
Business Process Management, 24-28 September, pp. 15. Springer: Brisbane (2007)
31. Bisnez Management: Business Process Management Onderzoek (2010), Online available,
http://www.bisnez.org/
32. BPMInstitute: 2010 BPM Market Assessment Survey (2010), Online available,
http://2010stateofbpm.surveyconsole.com/
33. BPT Group: Welcome to 8 Omega v2.0. BP Transformations Group (March 2008), Online
available, http://bptg.seniordev.co.uk/8omega.aspx
34. Dowdle, P., et al.: The Process-based Management Loop. The Journal of Corporate
Accounting & Finance (January), 55--60 (2005)
35. Dowdle, P., Stevens, J., Daly, D.: Process-based Management at Work in an Organization
(2007), Online available,
http://www.cam-i.org/docs/PBM_at_Work_in_an_organization.pdf
36. Champlin, B.: Dimensions of Business Process Change (25 June 2008), Online available,
https://www.bpminstitute.org
37. Deloitte: Het Business Maturity Model (2010), Online available,
http://www.deloitte.com/view/nl_NL/nl/diensten/consulting/
38. Ostolaza, E., Garcia, A.B.: EFQM/SPICE Integrated Model. In: International Conference
on Product Focused Software Improvement, June 22-24, pp. 437--452. Oulu (1999)
39. Fisher, D.M.: The Business Process Maturity Model. A Practical Approach for Identifying
Opportunities for Optimization. BPTrends (September 2004)
40. Gardner, R.A.: The Process-Focused Organization. A Transition Strategy for Success.
ASQ, Quality Press, Milwaukee (2004)
41. Melenovsky, M.J., Sinur, J.: BPM Maturity Model Identifies Six Phases for Successful
BPM Adoption. Gartner Research, Stamford (2006)
42. Harmon, P.: Evaluating an Organization's Business Process Maturity. BPTrends Newsletter
2(3), 1--11 (2004)
43. IDS Scheer: BPM Maturity Check (2010), Online available,
http://www.bpmmaturity.com/
44. Oracle: BPM Lifecycle Assessment (2008), Online available,
http://bpmready.nvishweb.com/
45. Remoreras, G.: Achieving the Highest Level of Process Culture Maturity (23 August 2009),
Online available, http://mysimpleprocesses.com/
46. Rummler-Brache Group: Business Process Management in U.S. Firms Today (March
2004), Online available, http://rummler-
brache.com/upload/files/PPI_Research_Results.pdf
47. Scavillo, M.: Business Process Transformation in the Software Industry (30 June 2008),
Online available, http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/
48. Scheer, A.-W.: BPM =Business Process Management =Business Performance Management
(2007), Online available, http://www.professor-scheer-bpm.com/
49. Smith, H., Fingar, P.: Process Management Maturity Models. BPTrends (July 2004)
50. Spanyi, A.: Beyond Process Maturity to Process Competence. BPTrends (June 2004)
51. Ayree, G., Naim, M.M., Lalwani, C.: Supply Chain Integration Using A Maturity Scale.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 19(5), 559--575 (2008)

15
Proceedings

52. Böhme, T.: Supply Chain Integration: A Case-based Investigation of Status, Barriers, and
Paths to Enhancement. The University of Waikato, Waikato (2008)
53. Campbell, J., Sankaran, J.: An Inductive Framework for Enhancing Supply Chain
Integration. International Journal of Production Research 43(16), 3321--3351 (2005)
54. Lockamy III, A., McCormack, K.: Supply Chain Maturity and Performance. In:
McCormack, K. (ed.) Business Process Maturity. Theory and Application, pp. 105--135.
Booksurge Publishing, South Carolina (2007)
55. McClaren, T.: A Measurement Model for Web-enabled Supply Chain Integration. In:
Proceedings of the 19th Bled eConference eValues, pp. 1--13. Bled (2006)
56. Closs, D.J., Mollenkopf, D.A.: A Global Supply Chain Framework. Industrial Marketing
Management 33, 37--44 (2004)
57. Netland, T.H., Alfnes, E., Fauske, H.: How Mature is your Supply Chain? Supply Chain
Maturity Assessment Test. In: Proceedings of the 14th EurOMA Conference, pp. 1--10.
EurOMA, Ankara (2007)
58. Riverola, J.: A General Approach to the Case Gathering Phase (2001), Online available,
http://catalcatel.iese.edu/WEBSCM/Archivos/MaturityModel.pdf
59. Enkawa, T.: Logistics Scorecard (LSC) in Japan (May 2005), Online available,
http://transportal.fi/Hankkeet/eglo/.383.pdf
60. AberdeenGroup: Global Supply Chain Benchmark Report (June, 2006), Online available,
https://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/igs/pdf/aberdeen-
benchmark-report.pdf
61. Anderson, D.L., Lee, H.L.: The Internet-Enabled Supply Chain: from the "First Click" to
the "Last Mile". In: Anderson, D.L. (ed.) Achieving Supply Chain Excellence Through
Technology, vol. 2, pp. 15--20. Montgomery Research (2000)
62. CGF: The Global Scorecard (2010), Online available,
http://www.globalscorecard.net/
63. Ayers, J.B.: Supply Chain Project Management. A Structured Collaborative and
Measurable Approach (2nd ed.). Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton (2010)
64. Chicago Consulting: Supply Chain Maturity. A Self-Assessment (2010), Online available,
http://www.chicago-consulting.com/
65. Poirier, C.C., Quinn, F.J., Swink, M.L.: Diagnosing Greatness. Ten Traits of the Best
Supply Chains. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale (2010)
66. eKNOWtion: Supply Chain Maturity Monitor (2009), Online available,
http://www.eknowtion.com/phpQ/fillsurvey.php?sid=8
67. IBM: The IBM Global Business Services 2007 Mainland China Value Chain Study (17
October 2007), Online available, http://www-
935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/thoughtleadership/#Next
68. van den Bergh, J.: Supply Chain Maturity Scan (2010), Online available,
http://www.jvdbconsulting.com/supply-chain-maturity-scan.html
69. Boone, L.M., et al.: The GAIA Supply Chain Sustainability Maturity Model (2009), Online
available, http://www.lmi.org/logistics/logistics.aspx
70. Holmes, J.: Building Supply Chain Communities (1997). Online available,
http://criticalcomputing.com/
71. Cohen, S., Roussel, J.: Strategic Supply Chain Management. The 5 Disciplines for Top
Performance. McGraw-Hill, New York (2005)
72. APQC: Supply-Chain Council SCOR-mark Survey (2007), Online available,
http://www.apqc.org/scc
73. Schoenfeldt, T.I.: A Practical Application of Supply Chain Management Principles. ASQ,
Milwaukee (2008)
74. Stevens, G.C. Integrating the Supply Chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 19(8), 3--8 (1989)