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 implementation 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 identifying the implementation of a process approach in management is insuffi-cient in the precise assessment of the organization’s process maturity. This means that they should be extended to include qualitative research. The solution to this problem may be the use of a multidimensional 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 implemenConcept 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.
[1]
Jörg Becker,et al.
Developing Maturity Models for IT Management
,
2009,
Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng..
[2]
Piotr Sliż.
Dojrzałość procesowa organizacji - wyniki badań empirycznych
,
2016
.
[3]
Jörg Becker,et al.
Maturity models in business process management
,
2012,
Bus. Process. Manag. J..
[4]
D. Tranfield,et al.
Factors characterising the maturity of BPR programmes
,
2003
.
[5]
Stefano Biazzo,et al.
Process management practices and quality systems standards: Risks and opportunities of the new ISO 9001 certification
,
2003,
Bus. Process. Manag. J..
[6]
J. Katzenbach,et al.
The discipline of teams.
,
1993,
Harvard business review.
[7]
Szymon Cyfert.
Metody podnoszenia efektywności procesów w polskich przedsiębiorstwach - ograniczenia i kierunki zmian
,
2009
.
[8]
Michael Rosemann,et al.
Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model
,
2005
.
[9]
Michael Rohloff,et al.
Case Study and Maturity Model for Business Process Management Implementation
,
2009,
BPM.
[10]
M. Hammer.
The process audit.
,
2007,
Harvard business review.
[11]
Maximilian Röglinger,et al.
What makes a useful maturity model? a framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management
,
2011,
ECIS.
[12]
Michael Rosemann,et al.
Towards a Business Process Management Maturity Model
,
2005,
ECIS.
[13]
Mojca Indihar Stemberger,et al.
A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity
,
2009,
Bus. Process. Manag. J..
[14]
Sungwon Kang,et al.
An Overview of the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM)
,
2007,
APWeb/WAIM Workshops.
[15]
Piotr Sliż.
Rola dojrzałości multiprocesowej sieci w kształtowaniu relacji międzyorganizacyjnych - wyniki badań empirycznych
,
2016
.