The stronger the process orientation, the more defined the process maturity model that organizations' data exhibits over time (Liu, Li, Zhao, 2009). While process maturity models vary in their definition of levels and lexicon, they all share a common trait of the lowest level of process integration typically being ad-hoc and often indicating an organization prior to process definition. There are processes not well defined, integrated or measured for performance. This is the first layer in a maturity model and is often marked by reaction and firefighting over getting actual process integration completed. The second layer of a process maturity model in organization with strong process orientation is marked by internal orchestration and the ability to anticipate information needs over time (Kim, Won, 2007). In larger organizations this is commonplace and often leads to a silo-based approach to managing processes, which has been shown to be very ineffective in getting objectives accomplished (Hammer, 2002). The third layer up on the model is one marked by collaboration both within and outside the organization. This is a level that requires information systems and process integration for process improvement to gain this level of coordination and synchronization. Smaller organizations typically have an exceptional ability to attain this level of performance given their smaller staffs and the reliance on external partnerships for their growth (Kim, Won, 2007). Organizations that have an exceptionally strong process orientation and have attained a level of trust with internal and external departments and divisions attain the highest level of process maturity, which is multitier visibility and collaboration (Liu, Li, Zhao, 2009). This is level of process maturity is marked by the complete integration of IT systems and process integration (Hammer, 2002). It is rare for an entire organization to reach this level of maturity, yet operating divisions of General Electric have (Hammer, 2002).
Conclusion
The ability...
(2005, August). CIO Evolution; To avoid extinction, CIOs must move from an orientation that revolves around technology to one centered on business processes. CIO, 18(20), 34-361.
Michael Hammer. (2002). Process management and the future of Six Sigma. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 26-32.
Gyeung-Min Kim, & Hyun Jung Won. (2007). HR BPO service models for small and medium enterprises. Business Process Management Journal, 13(5), 694-706.
Ibon Serrano Lasa, Carlos Ochoa Laburu, & Rodolfo de Castro Vila. (2008). An evaluation of the value stream mapping tool. Business Process Management Journal, 14(1), 39-52.
Liu, C., Li, Q., & Zhao, X.. (2009). Challenges and opportunities in collaborative business process management: Overview of recent advances and introduction to the special issue. Information Systems Frontiers, 11(3), 201-209.
Dag Naslund. (2008). Lean, six sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process improvement methods? Business Process Management Journal, 14(3), 269-287.
Rok Skrinjar, Vesna Bosilj-Vuksic, & Mojca Indihar-Stemberger. (2008). The impact of business process orientation on financial and non-financial performance. Business Process Management Journal, 14(5), 738-754.
Veldman, J., & Klingenberg, W.. (2009). Applicability of the capability maturity model for engineer-to-order firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 48(2), 219.
Jeff Hoi Yan Yeung, Willem Selen, Chee-Chuong Sum, & Baofeng Huo. (2006). Linking financial performance…
