Global Journal of Management and Business Research, A: Administration and Management, Volume 23 Issue 10
addition to being relevant models in the literature, according to Froger et al. (2019), the performance of the processes depends not only on their individual characteristics but also on business skills, such as culture and knowledge. In this context, the BPM-CF and PEMM models are the only ones that evaluate these capacities among the models presented in reviews studies of BPMMM analysis (Alshathry, 2016; Froger et al., 2019; Röglinger et al., 2012; Tarhan et al., 2015; Tarhan et al., 2016). The capacities and evaluative factors of the proposed model are based on the BPM-CF model. In addition, some evaluative factors are based on the PEMM model because its comprehensiveness in a certain item and/or language more appropriate to the user. The capacities and factors assessed, as well as the model questions, are described in Appendix 1. The maturity levels are based on the BPM-CF model (Rosemann and Bruin (2005) since it is the most cited in the literature (Tarhan et al. 2016) and the main model used concerning the proposal of the new model. Table I presents the levels and descriptions of the proposed maturity model, based on the BPM-CF model. Table I: Maturity Levels MaturityLevel Description Level 1 – Initial It does not have process management initiatives or has uncoordinated and unstructured initiatives. Level 2 – Repetitive It is progressing beyond the first process management initiatives and is looking for management improvements. Level 3 – Defined It has growing quests to build and develop the capacity for process management and expand individuals who analyze the organization from a process perspective. Level 4 – Managed It has a management process firmly implanted in the composition of improvement strategies. Level 5 – Optimized It has a management process firmly implanted in strategic and operational management. b) Model Maturity Level Evaluation After defining the model maturity levels, the next step is to define the ways for the proposed model to deliver the final result, presenting the maturity level of the sectors surveyed. To achieve this goal, we decided to use a quatitative model to mesure the maturity level, in order make it easier for users. For this, figure 1 illustrates the followed procedures. Figure 1: Calculation for the Maturity Level The evaluation model proposed here is based on the MDCM methodology of Aragão (2020) and Zola et al. (2019). i. AHP Method The AHP is a MCDM based proposed by Saaty (1994), where the decision-maker can express his preferences (Serrano et al., 2011). It can be applied to rank the alternatives or to weigh the criteria, being the second option the most used one (Zola et al., 2019). In this study, the AHP method is used to weigh the criteria. In the AHP weighting process, an individual or a group of decision-makers do pairwise comparisons of each of the criteria, using the Saaty scale (Saaty, 1980) as a reference, as shown in Table II. Table II: Saaty Scale Number Linguistic Variable Meaning 1 Equalpreference The two criteria contribute identically to the objective. 3 Moderatepreference One criterion is a little more preferable than the other. 5 Strong preference One criterion is clearly preferable to the other. 7 Verystrongpreference One criterion is predominant for the objective. 9 Extreme preference Without any doubt, one of the criteria is absolutely predominant for the objective. 2,4,6,8 Reciprocal Valuesofprevious Intermediatevalues 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 57 © 2023 Global Journals When looking for a compromise condition between the two definitions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTg4NDg=