capability through the business process improvement activities. CMM/CMMI is a widely used maturity model for supporting software/system development.
Comparison of vPMM and BPMM Jihyun Lee*, Sungwon Kang*, Danhyung Lee*, Yu-Whoan Ahn**, and Andrew Boknam Park** *School of Engineering Information and Communications University {puduli, kangsw, danlee}@icu.ac.kr **HANDYPMG Corp. Yeoksam-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea {ywahn, bpark}@handypmg.co.kr process maturity model is supposed to guide an organization to measure and control so that process capability (“Process capability is the range of expected results that can be achieved by following a process [1].”) is functioning (“Process performance is a measure of actual results achieved by following a process [1].”) toward achievement of an organization’s business value. The vPMM is a maturity model directly considers business values together with business processes and ensures that its maturity level is a direct indicator of the capability of controlling business values. As for the BPMM, it also tries to address the issue that maturity models do not include any direct consideration of business performance and business results [9].The purpose of this paper is to compare the vPMM and the BPMM. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the vPMM briefly and Section 3 presents an approach for comparing the vPMM and BPMM. In Section 4, we compare the vPMM and BPMM according to this approach and the results are discussed and summarized in Section 5. And the paper concludes in Section 6 with conclusions and future works.
Abstract A business process maturity model provides standards and measures to organizations in assessing, defining and improving business processes, thereby guiding them to achieving business goals and values. We developed a business process maturity model called Value-based Process Maturity Model (vPMM) to tackle those goals. The vPMM is a maturity model that can indicate the capability of controlling the business values of an organization and provide guidance on how to incorporate its business value achievement in its business process. This paper describes the comparison results of the two business process maturity models; the vPMM that we developed and the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM), which is in the process of becoming an OMG standard. For this, we defined four comparison aspects - inputs, structural components, normative information, and informative information – and performed comparison of the two maturity models.
1. Introduction A Process Maturity Model (PMM) is a framework of providing principles in order to help an organization achieve a mature business process performance capability through the business process improvement activities. CMM/CMMI is a widely used maturity model for supporting software/system development. Without standards to assess the maturity of business processes, as Curtis says, “there is no method to assess the risk that immature processes pose to enterprise IT projects, or to identify the causes of weaknesses in their process workflows that, if addressed, could reduce cost and increase operating efficiency” [4]. For this, OMG adopted Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM) as an OMG standard [9]. Software process maturity means the degree that software process is clearly defined, managed, measured, controlled, and is effectively performed [2]. But the process maturity level does not in itself ensure that an organization with high maturity achieves its business values better than with low maturity. Namely, existing process maturity models do not explicitly consider the accomplishment of business values within a model. A
2. vPMM The vPMM is a business process maturity model that can be used to determine the maturity of an organization’s current business process practices with considering an organization’s business value creation capability as well. It helps an organization set priorities for improving its products/services (P/Ss) operations using a proven strategy and developing the capability required to accomplish its business values. Through the vPMM, an organization can efficiently and effectively manage their business processes while trying to achieve and realize its business objectives and values. In order to develop the vPMM we first derived generic PAs based on the IMCO framework and the maturity concept principles in order to guarantee that
1
related amplification. Figure 4 shows KPAs for each maturity level of the vPMM. The vPMM guides measuring, monitoring, and controlling business values achievement in KPAs, goals, and practices. In Fig. 4, the KPAs for measuring, monitoring, and controlling business value achievement are OPIL and BVM. In addition, the vPMM guides processes and practices to take care of related business values in accordance with their roles and responsibilities. For example, in Planning KPA of Level 2 of our vPMM, when a practitioner makes a plan for an assigned business work she is compelled to consider business value by making several plans first and then performing a tradeoff analysis based on the value achievement degree and necessary resources. As another example, with the Measurement & Analysis KPA of the vPMM, she has to find measures (KPIs) that would make significant impact on business value achievement. Especially, the vPMM considers explicitly the achievement of associated business values through accomplishing each goal of KPAs (i.e. Generic Goal 1, Generic Practice 1.2). Namely, accomplishing goals means achievement of associated business values.
all business activities are included within the defined KPAs. Then we conducted a survey and formal reviews to extract and adjust those characteristics of the maturity model that are suitable for the business process. As a result of the survey based on the initial vPMM, we grasped the organizations’ current business processes, the purpose of executing BPMS, and the direction of business process improvement. Additionally, we included business processes being valued in a real organization. In a similar manner, we mapped the value chain, applied practically in a manufacturing organization and in the study conducted by Porter [10], to validate that the vPMM is business process-oriented. Consequently, we assure that our vPMM is designed to reflect practical business activities. The vPMM consists of 5 maturity levels, 23 KPAs, 52 specific goals and 5 generic goals for institutionalization. Each specific goal has 3-5 specific practices, sub-practices, amplifications, and examples to guide goal achievements. Especially, vPMM is embedded business value process and achievement measurement and analysis process, and includes those
Level 5: Optimizing
Level 4: Quantitatively Managed
Level 3: Defined
Level 2: Managed
[CAR] Casual analysis & Resolution [OID] Org. Process Innovation & Deployment [ECI] Environmental Change Improvement
[IPPM] Integrated Process Performance Mgt. [QPSM] Quantitative Product & Service Mgt.
[BVM] Business Value Management [OPD] Org. Process Definition [OPIM] Org. Process Improvement Mgt. [PSM] Product & Service Mgt. [PSP] Product & Service Provision [OCAM] Org. Common Asset Mgt. [OCM] Org. Collaboration Mgt. [CM] Configuration Management [OPIL] Org. Process Improvement Leadership [PNN] Planning [M&C] Monitoring and Control [M&A] Measurement and Analysis [QA] Quality Assurance [PSD] Product & Service Development [SM] Supplier Management [ORM] Org. Resource Mgt. [IM] Investment Mgt. [OCRM] Org. Customer Relationship Management
Fig. 1. The Structure of the vPMM follows; The first aspect is the inputs for developing a maturity model such as fundamental principles, existing maturity models (e.g. CMM, CMMI, SPICE), and engineering principles applied to develop a maturity model (① inputs among comparison aspects of Fig. 1). These inputs are necessary to be analyzed
3. Approach for comparison For comparing the vPMM and BPMM, base principles, we should analyze the major structural components, and the contents of each structural component of them. Therefore, this paper classifies comparison aspects as
2
models. Providing various amplifications (practical guidance of the BPMM) is also important in order to guide implementation well, but we do not carry on this component.
because they are basis composing the basic structure of a maturity model and provide validated practices to a model. The second aspect is the structural components of a maturity model such as number of maturity level, KPAs, Goals, Practices, and Amplifications ( ② structural components among comparison aspects of Fig. 1). The third and forth aspects are the contents of normative components (③ normative components of Fig. 1) and informative components (④ informative components of Fig. 1) respectively. Informative contents are compared for clear analysis of the differences of normative contents. Fig. 2 illustrates these four comparison aspects. It is enough to compare to the Goal level for confirming the similarities of KPAs between the vPMM and the BPMM. Because a Goal can be achieved through the different practices that are adjusted in accordance with an organization’s characteristics (i.e. Goals are normative while practices are informative). However, it is difficult to confirm the similarities of the two models’ Goals only through the Goal description. Moreover, since the level of abstractions and the definitions of the two models are different, comparing Goals of the two models is not easy. Therefore, collating practices of the two models is necessary to clarify the similarities or differences of
3
Normative Components
Maturity Level consists by 1
Inputs and philosophies
Fundamental principles Reference models Engineering principles
Key Process Areas scoped by
Goals implemented by
Practices elaborated by
elaborated by
Amplifications and Guidance
Subpractices 4 Comparison aspects
Informative Components 2
Structural Components
Fig. 1. Approach for comparison
Table 1. Comparison from inputs and philosophies aspects Comparison Aspects
vPMM
BPMM
Foundational Principles
CMM/CMMI, BPMM, IS12207/15288, SCOR, BPR, Value Chain, Value Stream [Martin 95], State-of-theart materials related to BP and BPM maturity
CMM/CMMI, People CMM, COBIT, ITIL, TQM, PMBOK, Baldrige National Quality Program, ISO-9000
Applied engineering principles
IDEF0, Value Chain
Meaning of attaining maturity levels
Achieving business values (measure business value achievement) i.e. higher maturity level means higher capability of achieving business values.
Achieving business goals (measure business performance or results)
Means of implementing the (above) meaning of maturity levels
OPIL, BPM GG1, Practice and sub-practice level of each KPA
OPL, OBG
Appraisal method
VBAA
that the vPMM identifies generic business process areas with the viewpoint that any business process essentially belongs to one of the four generic kinds of activities – Input, Mechanism, Control, and Output (IMCO) [8]. And the vPMM utilized core and support processes of the Value Chain [10] for validating whether the vPMM includes all necessary processes
4. Comparison of the vPMM and BPMM The vPMM and the BPMM are similar in that the fundamental principles are existing validated process improvement guidelines such as CMM, CMMI, and IS Standard and associated business process approaches ITIL, SCOR, BPR, and etc. But they are different in
3
the mapping results between the Generic Goals of the vPMM and the Institutionalization Goals of the BPMM.
and for distributing KPAs to each maturity level. The vPMM organized process areas related to core processes at the lower level, thereby it makes an organization achieve them prior to others (① Inputs and Philosophies). Table 1 describes the comparison results from inputs point of view. Foundation and applied engineering principles aspects are related to inputs and remains are those of philosophies. The BPMM structure is based on CMM while the basis of the vPMM is CMMI. Therefore, the BPMM uses the staged representation as basis (but, it provides for continuous representation) and the vPMM uses staged and continuous representation at the same time like CMMI. In addition, in case of institutionalization, the vPMM follows the structure of CMMI and the BPMM simplifies those of CMM (② Structural components). Table 2 shows the comparison results from the comparison aspect of structural components. The comparison results show that the structural components of vPMM and BPMM are similar.
Table 3. Comparison of institutionalization vPMM GP 1.2 Achieve the Assigned Business Values
Table 2. Comparison of structural components Comparison aspects
vPMM 5
5
KPAs
23(10, 8, 2, 3)
30(9,10,5,6)
Specific Goals
52
79
Institutionalizati on Goals
GG 1-5
InG (IP 1-5)
Goals
GP 2.1, Level 3(Org. Process Definition)
InP 1 Describe the Process
GP 2.2 Plan the Process GP 2.3 Provide Resources GP 2.4 Assign Responsibility GP 2.7 Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders
InP 2 Plan the Work
GP 2.5 Train People GP 2.4
InP 3 Provide Knowledge and Skills
GP 2.8 Monitor and Control the Process
InP 4 Control Performance and Results
GP 2.9 Objectively Evaluate Adherence GP 2.10 Review Status with Higher Level Management
InP 5 Objectively Assure Conformance
GP 2.6 Manage Configuration
Level 2(Work Unit Configuration Mgt.), Level 3(Org. Configuration Mgt.)
BPMM
Maturity levels
BPMM
Table 4 is the comparison results of KPAs among the normative components (③ Normative components). Finally, we compared two maturity models to the extent of Practice level after comparing Goal levels if necessary (④ informative components). As the results, the vPMM covers most Goals of the BPMM. In case of the BPMM, because it uses the staged representation some KPAs are redundant (e.g. Work Unit Configuration Management of Level 2 and Organizational Configuration Management of Level 3) and similar Goals and Practices are repeated (e.g. practices for assigning responsibility are repeated in Work Unit Planning and Commitment and Work Unit Monitoring and Control KPA. In case of Organizational Process Improvement Leadership and Business Value Management KPA of the vPMM, the comparison reveals the necessity of accepting the Goals of the related KPAs of the BPMM. Table 5 shows the mapping results between Organizational Process Improvement Leadership (OPIL) of the vPMM and Organizational Process Leadership (OPL) of the BPMM from the 4th comparison aspect.
Table 3 describes the comparison results from an institutionalization aspect (i.e. Generic Goals and Practices of the vPMM and Institutionalization Practice of the BPMM) among normative components. The BPMM defines Institutionalization Goals and Practices based on common features of CMM while the vPMM defines Generic Goals and Practices based on CMMI structure. However, similar to the common features of CMM maps to generic goals and practices [3], the vPMM’s Generic Goals and Practices map to the BPMM’s Institutionalization Goals and Practices. Differently with the BPMM, the vPMM added Generic Goal and Practice consider directly that business values should be accomplished through business processes (Goal 1, GP 1.2) as illustrated in Table 3. The vPMM is supposed to accomplish a Goal by implementing processes and thereby business values should be achieved (③ Normative components). Table 3 shows
4
Table 4. Comparison of KPAs vPMM
BPMM Level 2 KPAs
Org. Process Leadership
Organizational Process Leadership
[Level 3] Org. Business Value Mgt.
Organizational Business Governance
P/S Development
Work Unit Requirements Mgt.
Planning
Work Unit Planning and Commitment
Monitoring and Control
Work Unit Monitoring and Control
Measurement and Analysis
Work Unit Performance
[Level3] Configuration Management
Work Unit Configuration Mgt.
Supplier Management
Sourcing Management
Quality Assurance
Process and Product Assurance
Resource Management
[Level 3] Org. Resource Mgt.
Investment Management
[Level 3] Product and Service Business Mgt.
P/S Development
[Refer to the KPA comparison results of Level 3] Level 3 KPAs
Org. Process Definition
Org. Process Management
Org. Process Improvement Mgt. Org. Collaboration Mgt.
Org. Competency Development
[Level 2] Resource Management
Org. Resource Management
Configuration Management
Org. Configuration Management
[Level 2] Investment Management
Product and Service Business Mgt.
P/S Management
Product and Service Work Mgt. Product and Service Preparation
[Level 2] P/S Development
Product and Service Deployment Product and Service Operations
P/S Provision
Product and Service Support Level 4 KPAs
[Level 3] Org. Common Asset Mgt.
Org. Common Asset Mgt. Org. Capability and Performance Mgt.
Integrated Process Performance Mgt.
Product and Service Process Integration Quantitative Product and Service Mgt.
Quantitative P/S Management
Quantitative Process Mgt. Level 5 KPAs
Environmental Change Management Causal Analysis and Resolution Organizational Innovation and Development Organizational Innovation and Development
Defect and Problem Prevention Continuous Capability Improvement Org. Performance Alignment Org. Innovative Improvement Org. Improvement Deployment
6, 12, 14] and the relationship between maturity level and productivity [11] was validated through various researches. However, “a frequent criticism of maturity models and the associated methods is that they do not include any direct consideration of business
5. Discussions The relationship between maturity level and quality results (e.g. the relative density of CMM Level 1 was 1.0 but at CMM Level 5, it was decreased to 0.05) [7, 5,
5
pursues. The vPMM has advantages over the BPMM in that not only it defines KPAs for measuring, monitoring, and controlling business values but also it embeds business values to the extent of Goals and Practices and thereby an organization can achieve its business values according to the roles and responsibilities of each process. As Spanyi [13] said, a business process maturity model has to focus on competence. The maturity level should agree with the organization’s competence for achieving their business values such as market share, revenue, and time to market improvement. The vPMM presented in this paper is the first business process maturity model that was constructed with that goal in mind and is carefully engineered such that design of levels, goals and sub-goals, practice areas and practices are all aligned towards the goal.
performance or results – that it is possible to move from one maturity level to the next without nay demonstrable improvement in business performance or results [9]”. The vPMM and BPMM has commonality in that both of them pursue to guide business process improvement by considering the organization’s business values/goals. Especially, the vPMM assesses and guides focusing on the business value achievement that an organization pursues. The comparison results can be summarized as follows: y The vPMM is compliant with the BPMM. - The vPMM includes most KPAs and Goals of the vPMM (confirming to the extent of the practice/su b-practice level for validating this) y The vPMM provides Goals and Practices for measuring, monitoring, and controlling the business value accomplishment in accordance with the roles and responsibilities of each process areas as well as KPAs. - The BPMM defines KPAs for measuring and cont rolling whether the business results are improved due to the business process improvement as the v PMM does. However, it is desirable that a maturit y model guides an organization to improve its pro cesses aligning the business value achievement ac cording to the roles and responsibilities of each pr ocess. For this, a maturity model should guide wh at each process should do for achieve the assigned business values. y The vPMM has assessment guideline for assessing the vPMM conformance.
References [1] M. B. Chrissis, M. Konrad, and S. Shrum, CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement, 2nd Ed. Addison Wesley, 2007. [2] CMU/SEI, The Capability Maturity Model: Guides for Improving the Software Process, Addison Wesley, 1994. [3] http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/, Mapping of CMMISE/SW Version 1.1 to and from SW-CMM Version 1.1 published by U.S.A.F. Software Technology Support Center, January, 2002. [4] B. Curtis and J. Alden, “The Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM): What, Why & How”, BPTrends Column, Feb., 2007. [5] Samuel Keene, “Modeling Software R&M Characteristics,” Unpublished report. [6] Herb Krasner, “Self-Assessment Experience at Lockheed,” Third Annual SEPG Workshop, November 1990. [7] J. Martin, The Great Transition: Using the Seven Disciplines of Enterprise Engineering to Align People, Technology, and Strategy, American Management Association, 1995. [8] NIST, “Integration DEfinition for Function Modeling (IDEF0)”, Draft Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 183, National Institute for Standards and Technology, Washington D.C., 1993. [9] http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMM/1.0/PDF [10] M.E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, NY, 1985. [11] Lawrence H. Putnam, “Linking the QSM Productivity Index with the SEI Maturity Level,” QSM, 2000. [12] Stan Rifkin, “The Business Case for Software Process Improvement,” Fifth SEPG National Meeting, April 1993. [13] A. Spanyi, “Beyond Process Maturity to Process Competence”, BP Trends, June, 2004. [14] Karl D. Williams, "The Value of Software Improvement… Results! Results! Results!" SPIRE97, June 1997.
However, the BPMM simplifies institutionalization. This because the basis of the BPMM (Institutionalization Goal and Practice) structure is CMM while the vPMM (Generic Goal and Practice) is based on CMMI structure. But, as we already describes in Section 4, this is the result of shortcomings that KPAs and Goals of the BPMM are repeated between the maturity levels or between the KPAs. The BPMM provides the guidance for the continuous representation, but it is not sufficient to apply.
6. Conclusions and Future Works In this paper we compared the BPMM which is being adapted as an OMG Standard, and the vPMM that we developed. The main focus of the vPMM is on providing guidance for business value identifying, achieving, and managing while providing the standard business process practices as provided by the BPMM. The differentiation of the vPMM is that the vPMM guides business process improvement toward accomplishing business values that an organization
6
