Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 23 Issue 10

focusing strongly on prescriptive properties, as the direction for future work. Based on this, the objective of this study is to propose a BPMMM based on relevant models from scientific literature, with prescriptive characteristics and a multi-criteria decision-making approach (MCDM). The proposed model considers the capabilities of the Business Process Management Capability Framework (BPM-CF) model, including strategic alignment, governance, methods, information technology, people, and culture (Froger et al., 2019; Niehaves et al., 2013; Zwicker et al., 2010; Rosemann et al., 2006). After selecting these capabilities, we proceeded to analyze the factors within the BPM-CF and Process Execution Maturity Model (PEMM). The relevance of this study is highlighted by its practical and managerial contribution to asset manage- ment, as well as its theoretical and methodological contribution to the scientific community. Due to the growing demand and expansion of asset control activities, the search for new tools and management strategies becomes crucial for public institutions. The application of a maturity model to measure the maturity of asset management processes aligns with these needs. Through this research, it becomes possible to diagnose and evaluate the degree of maturity of processes and tools within the Property Divisions of public universities. This evaluation offers tangible improvement opportunities not only within these institutions but also within other public sector organizations sharing the same goal of enhancement. The significance of this research also lies in its ability to assist researchers, experts, and public servants in understanding, evaluating, and selecting maturity models that best represent their organizational goals. This is achievable through the systematic literature review conducted, maximizing the results of its application. Furthermore, the proposal of a prescriptive maturity model, utilizing a multi-criteria approach and presenting ease of application, promises to be a valuable tool in facilitating the practical implementation of these models. II. L iterature R eview a) Business Process Management Maturity Models (BPMMM) Maturity models are tools that assist in the measurement of general process conditions. Business process management capabilities are used to propose maturity models as measurement instruments (van Looy, 2019). Maturity levels are assessed by the desired phases, from an initial state to a more mature state (Froger et al., 2019), characterized as a set of criteria or standards, used by organizations, to evaluate the level of efficiency and compliance in the process management (Alshathry, 2016). The main objective of maturity models is to describe the stages of the maturation path, including the characteristics of each stage and the logical relationship between them (Röglinger et al., 2012). As for practical application, the classic purposes of use are: descriptive, prescriptive, and comparative (BRUIN et al., 2005). The model with a descriptive goal is applied to assess the current state of the process. Although, the prescriptive model is applied to identify desirable maturity future levels and provide guidance on implementing these improvements base on improvement measures. The model with a comparative purpose allows internal or external benchmarking (Röglinger et al., 2012). According to BPMMM analysis studies (Alshathry, 2016; Froger et al., 2019; Röglinger et al., 2012; Tarhan et al., 2015; Tarhan et al., 2016) and BPMMM selection study (Lima et al., 2017), the BPM-CF model (Rosemann and Bruin, 2005) is the most referenced in the literature, with extensive studies of its application. The PEMM model (Hammer, 2007) is the only one that can be applied to a single or a set of processes, and its simplicity in design allows for self- assessment, with no need for external specialists. Therefore, the proposed model of this study is based on the BPM-CF and PEMM models, considering that Röglinger et al. (2012) points out that the development of BPMMM must be based on the integration and consolidation of an existing model; as well as Tarhan et al. (2016), who states that the consolidation of existing BPMMM, with a strong emphasis on prescriptive ability, should be the direction for future studies. b) Capabilities and Maturity Levels The BMM-CF model, by Rosemann and Bruin (2005), comprises six assessment capacities: Strategic Alignment, Governance, Methods, Information Technology, People, and Culture. The PEMM model (Hammer, 2007) encompasses the so-called facilitators, who attribute to the process the potential to offer high performance, namely: Design, Executors, Responsible, Infrastructure, and Metrics. This model also addresses the so-called capacities, which guarantee the process needs to change and support, which are: Leadership, Culture, Knowledge, and Governance. The BPM-CF model, regarding the maturity levels, covers five levels: initial, repetitive, defined, managed, and optimized. The PEMM model covers four levels: P1 (reliable, predictable, and stable), P2 (superior results), P3 (ideal performance), and P4 (best in class). III. M ethodology a) Selection of the Maturity Model The maturity model proposed in this study is based on the BPM-CF and PEMM models, because in Innovative Multicriteria Approach to Business Process Management Maturity in the Public Sector Global Journal of Management and Business Research ( A ) XXIII Issue X Version I Year 2023 56 © 2023 Global Journals