Analysis of business process maturity and organisational performance relations

Kalinowski, B. T.

doi:10.1515/manment-2015-0052

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Analysis of business process maturity and organisational performance relations

Autorzy

Kalinowski B. T.

Wybrane pełne teksty z tego czasopisma

https://www.management-poland.com/

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/manment-2015-0052

Warianty tytułu

Analiza relacji pomiędzy dojrzałością procesową i wynikami organizacji

Języki publikacji

Abstrakty

The paper aims to present results of the study on business process maturity in relation to organisational performance. A two-phase methodology, based on literature review and survey was used. The literature is a source of knowledge about business process maturity and organisational performance, whereas the research on process maturity vs organisational performance in Polish Enterprises provides findings based on 84 surveyed companies. The main areas of the research covered: identification and analysis of maturity related variables and identification of organisational performance perspectives and its relation to process maturity. The study shows that there is a significant positive relation between process maturity and organisational performance. Although there are research on such relation available, they are scarce and have some significant limitations in terms of research sample or the scope of maturity or organisational performance covered. This publication is part of a project funded by the National Science Centre awarded by decision number DEC-2011/01/D/HS4/04070.

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie wyników badań dotyczących relacji dojrzałości procesowej i wyników osiąganych przez organizacje. Zastosowana metodyka obejmowała przegląd literatury przedmiotu i badania kwestionariuszowe zrealizowane na próbie 84 przedsiębiorstw. Literatura była źródłem wiedzy na temat dojrzałości procesowej oraz efektywności organizacyjnej, z kolei badania dostarczyły wiedzy na temat wpływu dojrzałości realizowanych procesów na wyniki osiągane przez polskie przedsiębiorstwa z różnych branż. Główne obszary badań obejmowały: identyfikację i analizę praktyk determinujących dojrzałość procesową organizacji oraz określenie wymiarów efektywności, w których to zjawisko należy rozpatrywać w przedsiębiorstwach. W wyniku badań stwierdzono, że istnieje zależność pomiędzy dojrzałością procesową a wynikami osiąganymi przez organizację. Pomimo tego, że w literaturze przedmiotu opisane są podobne badania, to po pierwsze ich liczba jest niewielka, a po drugie posiadają one istotne ograniczenia, zarówno jeśli chodzi o zakres próby badawczej, jak również przyjętą definicję efektywności organizacyjnej. Publikacja powstała w ramach projektu sfinansowanego ze środków Narodowego Centrum Nauki przyznanych na podstawie decyzji numer DEC-2011/01/D/HS4/04070.

Słowa kluczowe

process maturity process management organisational performance

dojrzałość procesowa zarządzanie procesowe wyniki organizacji efektywność

Wydawca

University of Zielona Góra, Faculty of Economics and Management

Czasopismo

Management

Rocznik

2016

Tom

Vol. 20, no. 2

Strony

87--101

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 44 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kalinowski B. T.

University of Lodz Faculty of Management

Bibliografia

1. Adler, P., McGarry, F., Irion-Talbot,W., Binney, D. (2005), Enabling process discipline: lessons from the journey to CMM Level 5, “MISQ Executive” Vol. 4, iss. 1, pp. 215-227.
2. Antoniol, G., Gradara, S., Venturi, G. (2004), Methodological issues in a CMM Level 4 implementation. Software Process, “Improvement and Practice” Vol. 9, iss. 1, pp. 33-50.
3. Baird, K., Hu, K.J., Reeve, R. (2011), The relationships between organisational culture, total quality management practices and operational performance, “International Journal of Operations & Production Management” Vol. 31, iss. 7, pp. 789-814.
4. Bandara, W., Indulska, M., Chong, S., Sadiq, S. (2007), Major issues in business process management: An expert perspective, “BPTrends” Vol. 3, iss. 10, pp. 1–8.
5. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J., (2009), Developing maturity models for IT management – a procedure model and its application, “Business and Information Systems Engineering” Vol. 1, iss. 3, pp. 213-22.
6. Burlton, R.T. (2001), Business process management: Profiting from process, Sams, Indianapolis.
7. Cousins, P. D., Menguc, B. (2006), The implications of socialization and integration in supply chain management, “Journal of Operations Management” Vol. 24, iss. 4, pp. 604-620.
8. Crabtree, A. D., DeBusk, G. K. (2008), The effects of adopting the balanced scorecard on shareholder returns, “Advances in Accounting” Vol. 24, iss. 1, pp. 8–15.
9. Crosby, P. (1979), Quality is free, McGraw-Hill, New York.
10. Curtis, B., Alden, J. (2007)., Maturity Model du Jour: A Recipe for Side Dishes, BPTrends, http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfi les/10-07-COLmaturitymodeldujour-CurtisAlden-final.pdf (05.05.2013 - access date).
11. Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
12. Dearborn, D.C. Simon, H.A. (1958), Selective perception: a note on the departmental identification of executives, “Sociometry”, Vol. 21, iss. 3, pp. 140-104.
13. Gottschalk, P. (2009), Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government, “Government Information Quarterly” Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 75-81.
14. Govindarajan, V., Fisher, J., (1990), Strategy, control systems and ressource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance, “Academy of Management Journal” Vol. 33, iss. 2, pp. 259–285.
15. Guha, S., Kettinger, W. J. (1993), Business process reengineering, “Information Systems Management” Vol. 10, iss. 3, pp. 13-22.
16. Hammer M., (2007), The Process Audit, “Harvard Business Review” Vol. 85, iss. 4, pp. 111-123.
17. Harmon, P., Wolf, C., (2014), The State of Business Process Management, BPTrends, http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/uploads/ BPTrends-State-of-BPM-Survey-Report.pdf (12.04.2014 - access date).
18. Hendricks, K. B., Singhal, V. R., Stratman, J. K. (2007), The impact of enterprise systems on corporate performance: A study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations, “Journal of Operations Management” Vol. 25, iss. 2, pp. 65-82.
19. Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., Paulk, M. (1997), Software quality and the capability maturity model, “ACM” Vol. 40, iss. 6, pp. 30-40.
20. Humphrey, W.S. (1987), Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework, Carnegie Mellon University/Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh.
21. Hyvönen, J. (2007), Strategy, performance measurement techniques and information technology of the fi rm and their links to organisational performance, “Management Accounting Research” Vol. 18, iss. 3, pp. 343–366.
22. Ittner, C. D. (2008), Does measuring intangibles for management purposes improve performance?: A review of the evidence, “Accounting & Business Research” Vol. 38, iss. 3, pp. 261–272.
23. Jiang J.J., Klein G., Hwang H.G., Huang J., Hung S.Y. (2003), An exploration of the relation between software development process maturity and project performance, “Information and Management” Vol. 41, Iss. 3, pp. 279-288.
24. Kalinowski, T.B. (2012), A process management implementation model vs. the maturity of processes in Polish companies, Proceedings from 18th IGWT Symposium - Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Future, Rome.
25. Kaynak, H. (2003), The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance, “Journal of Operations Management” Vol. 21, iss. 4, pp. 405–435, DOI: 10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00004-4.
26. Kazanjian, R.K., Drazin, R. (1989), An empirical test of a stage of growth progression model, “Management Science” Vol. 35, iss. 12, pp. 1489-1503.
27. Kihn, L.A. (2010), Performance outcomes in empirical management accounting research. Recent developments and implications for future research, “International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management” Vol. 59, iss. 5, pp. 468–492.
28. Lee, R., Dale, B. (1998), Business process management: A review and evaluation, “Business Process Management Journal” Vol. 4, iss. 3, pp.214-225.
29. Madu, C.N. (1998), An empirical assessment of quality: research considerations, “International Journal of Quality Science”, Vol. 3, iss. 4, pp. 348-355.
30. Martensen, A., Dahlgaard, J.J., Park-Dahlgaard, S.M. and Grønholdt, L. (2007), Measuring and diagnosing innovation excellence – simple contra advanced approaches: a Danish study, “Measuring Business Excellence” Vol. 11, iss. 4, pp. 51-65, DOI: 10.1108/13683040710837928.
31. McCormack, K. P., Johnson, W. C. (2001), Business process orientation –Gaining the e-business competitive advantage, St. Lucie Press, Florida.
32. McCormack, K., Willems, J., van den Bergh, J., Deschoolmeester, D., Willaert, P., Stemberger, M.I., Skrinjar, R., Trkman, P., Ladeira, M.B., Valadares de Oliveira, M.P., Vuksic, V.B., Vlahovic, N. (2009), A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity, “Business Process Management Journal” Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 792-815.
33. Nolan, R. (1973), Managing the crisis in data processing, “Harvard Business Review”, Vol. 57, iss. 2, pp. 115–126.
34. Nowosielski, S. (2012), Dojrzałość procesowa a wyniki ekonomiczne organizacji, “Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu”, No. 264, pp. 354-369.
35. Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J. (2012), Maturity models in business process management, “Business Process Management Journal” Vol. 18, iss. 2, pp. 328-346.
36. Rosemann, M., De Bruin, T. (2005), Application of a Holistic Model for Determining BPM Maturity, BPTrends, http://www.bptrends. com/publicationfiles/02-05%20WP%20Application%20of%20a%20Holistic%20 Model-%20Rosemann-Bruin%20-%E2%80%A6.pdf (11.042012– access date).
37. Rosemann, M., vom Brocke, J., (2015), The six core elements of business process management, [in:] vom Brocke, J., Rosemann, M., (ed.), Handbook on Business Process Management Vol. 1, Springer, New York.
38. Rummler, G.A., Brache, A.P. (1990), Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organisation Chart, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
39. Škrinjar, R., Bosilj-Vukšić, V., Indihar-Štemberger, M. (2008), The impact of business process orientation on financial and non-financial performance, “Business Process Management Journal” Vol. 14, iss. 5, pp. 738-754.
40. Straub, D.W., Boudreau, M.-C., Gefen, D. (2004), Validation guidelines for is positivist research, “Communications of the Association for Information Systems” Vol. 13, iss. 24, pp. 380–427.
41. Tangen, S. (2003), An overview of frequently used performance measures, “Work Study” Vol. 52, iss. 7, pp. 347–354.
42. Ukko, J. (2009), Managing through measurement: A framework for successful operative level performance measurement, PhD thesis at the Lappeenranta University of Technology.
43. Venkatraman, N., Grant, J.H. (1986), Construct measurement in organisational strategy research: a critique and proposal, “Academy of Management Review” Vol. 11, iss. 1, pp. 71-87.
44. Wendler, R. (2012), The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study, “Information and Software Technology” Vol. 54, iss. 12, pp. 1317–1339.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-380ee5ed-0b56-4f4a-a632-0374efbc9be8