A BPM Maturity Model to guide the evolution of BPM Competences in a Public Institution

• Jéssyka Vilela UFPE
• Carina Alves UFPE

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbsi.2025.245940

Resumo

Context: Business Process Management (BPM) has proven to be an essential practice for optimizing operational efficiency, especially in public institutions that face complex challenges related to hierarchical rigidity and the implementation of organizational changes. Problem: The lack of BPM maturity models tailored to the public sector creates significant gaps in the ability of government organizations to assess and improve their BPM competencies. Without a clear framework, these institutions struggle to improve their processes and reach higher levels of maturity. Solution: This work proposes a BPM maturity model specifically developed for public institutions, aiming to support the gradual evolution of their process management competencies. The model includes six key factors and 51 capability areas, along with five maturity levels that provide clear guidelines for implementation. IS Theory: The research is based on the Design Science Research (DSR) approach, which guides the development and evaluation of practical artifacts and theoretical contributions. The proposed model aims to contribute to the BPM maturity theory, especially in the public context. Method: The study was conducted through a case study in a Brazilian public institution, where the maturity model was applied to assess the current BPM level. The evaluation was supported by a spreadsheet tool that automates the maturity level verification process. Results: The maturity model evaluation revealed that the public institution studied had not yet reached maturity level two, indicating the need for significant improvements in strategic areas. The assessments highlighted the model’s usefulness as a practical tool for identifying deficiencies and outlining clear action plans. Contributions and Impact: This work contributes to the field of Information Systems (IS) by offering a maturity model adapted to the public sector, providing a practical and prescriptive approach to improving business process management.

Palavras-chave: BPM, Business Process Management, Maturity Model, Case Study, Public institution

Referências

Wasana Bandara, Amy Van Looy, John C. Merideth, and Lara Meyers. 2020. Holistic Guidelines for Selecting and Adapting BPM Maturity Models (BPM MMs). In International Conference on Business Process Management.

Alicja Gębczyńska and Katya Vladova. 2023. Comparative analysis of selected process maturity assessment models applied in the public sector. Business Process Management Journal 29, 3 (2023), 911–928.

ELO GROUP. 2020. Consultoria para o mundo de hoje. [link]

William Hayes, Eugene E Miluk, Lisa Ming, and Margaret Glover. 2005. Handbook for conducting Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) B and C appraisals, version 1.1. (2005).

Amy Van Looy, Manu De Backer, and Geert Poels. 2014. A conceptual framework and classification of capability areas for business process maturity. Enterprise Information Systems 8, 2 (2014), 188–224.

Object Management Group OMG. 2008. Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM). [link]

omitted. omitted. omitted. In omitted. omitted.

omitted. omitted. omitted. In omitted. omitted.

Ken Peffers, Tuure Tuunanen, Marcus A Rothenberger, and Samir Chatterjee. 2007. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of management information systems 24, 3 (2007), 45–77.

Maximilian Röglinger, Jens Pöppelbuß, and Jörg Becker. 2012. Maturity models in business process management. Business process management journal 18, 2 (2012), 328–346.

Michael Rosemann and Tonia De Bruin. 2005. Application of a holistic model for determining BPM maturity. BP Trends 2 (2005), 1–21.

M Rosemann, T De Bruin, and B Power. 2008. BPM Maturity,[in:] Jeston J., Nelis J.,(eds.): Business Process Management: Practical Guidelines to Successful Implementations.

Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical software engineering 14 (2009), 131–164.

Ensi Smajli, Gerald Feldman, and Sharon Cox. 2024. Exploring the Limitations of Business Process Maturity Models: A Systematic Literature Review. Information Systems Management (2024), 1–20.

Mojca Indihar Stemberger, Andrej Kovacic, and Jurij Jaklic. 2007. A Methodology for Increasing Business Process Maturity in Public Sector. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge & Management 2 (2007).

Rehan Syed, Wasana Bandara, Erica French, and Glenn Stewart. 2018. Getting it right! Critical success factors of BPM in the public sector: A systematic literature review. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 22 (2018), 1–39.

Marek Szelągowski and Justyna Berniak-Woźny. 2022. How to improve the assessment of BPM maturity in the era of digital transformation. Information Systems and e-Business Management 20, 1 (2022), 171–198.

Ayca Tarhan, Oktay Turetken, and Hajo A Reijers. 2016. Business process maturity models: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 75 (2016), 122–134.

Amy Van Looy. 2015. An experiment for measuring business process maturity with different maturity models. In Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015). AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), 1–12.

Amy Van Looy and Joachim Van den Bergh. 2018. The effect of organization size and sector on adopting business process management. Business & Information Systems Engineering 60, 6 (2018), 479–491.

Roy Wendler. 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and software technology 54, 12 (2012), 1317–1339.

Naufal Fahmi Zakiuddin, Sawung Murdha Anggara, and Suhardi. 2024. Developing Digital Service Transformation Maturity Model in Public Sector. IEEE Access (2024), 1–1. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3468341

Jörg Zwicker, Peter Fettke, and Peter Loos. 2010. Business process maturity in public administrations. Handbook on business process management 2: Strategic alignment, governance, people and culture (2010), 369–396.