Business Process Modeling Article Critique Report

Running head: BPM ARTICLE CRITIQUE 1
Business Process Modeling Article Critique Report
Name
Professor
Course
Date

BPM ARTICLE CRITIQUE 2
Business Process Modeling Article Critique Report
Article topic
Maturity Models in Business Process Management
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jens_Poeppelbuss/publication/
241509649_Maturity_Models_in_Business_Process_Management/links/
565f108908aefe619b27f19e/Maturity-Models-in-Business-Process-Management.pdf
Authors
Maximilian Röglinger, Jens Pöppelbuß, Jörg Becker
Article Summary
According the authors, the article sets out to identify the maturity models of business
process management (BPM). It offers an analysis of the models against some recently published
frameworks about general design principles of maturity models that are related to the usefulness
and applicability in BPM. The authors have managed to compile a set of 10 maturity models that
specifically address the BPM from a set of two maturity model collections that were compiled by
BPM scholars and focused web research [1]. The models have described the development of
organizational BPM that typically start from immature or initial stages to BPM practices that are
highly developed and have superior process performance. According to the article, these models
vary on the scope of focus based on the BPM practice condition, process condition or the two.
The article then suggests future study about more maturity models that are more ready-to-use
than the existing ones [2]. At the same time the authors suggest that adopters and business
owners need to research about the various models so that they can make a well-informed
decision about which one to apply in their businesses.
Strengths and weaknesses of the article
The article has a good introduction. The authors have followed the right manner of
writing a research paper as they have incorporated all the sections that start from introduction all
the way to the conclusion [3]. The article introduction is done well to introduce their paper.
After evaluating the models, the authors find out that they have sufficient coverage of the basic
principles and the descriptive purposes. However, this evaluation is not exhaustive as there is
still some room for improvement in respect to a description that is more detailed [4]. The authors
have also not given an assessment guideline that is easy-to-use. The authors could only identify a
prescriptive use purpose guidance of the models that is little concrete and documented.

BPM ARTICLE CRITIQUE 3
According to the article findings adopters of maturity models of practice still continue to face
challenges as they try searching for right measures of improving their BPM capabilities more
than the levels they achieve.
The article has used research questions that make the research objectives. The authors
manage to give the two research questions that aid their research. These are the guides of the
research as they help the authors come up with the research objectives. The queries involve
finding out the various maturity models used in BPM practice and their integration in design
principle frameworks [5]. The authors have managed to answer these questions well in their
article and it can be argued that their objectives are achieved. However, since their paper
involves an analysis of the existing models no new work emerges as the authors simply build on
existing concepts.
The methodology is also given and clear. The authors have used article review on
existing literature. They have succeeded in evaluating various sets of existing literatures of
various sources already done about maturity models in BPM. In their search about BPM
maturity models, the authors have only relied on the existing collections that have been provided
by sources related to the BPM domain. The authors have also searched for the literature related
to BPM so that they could identify additional maturity models. Based on the ever increasing
number and types of maturity models the authors have not managed to obtain content related to
models that are single BPM related. Moreover, they have defined the criteria that led to their
exclusion of some of the maturity models. Besides this fact the article manages to cover the most
prominent model examples mostly the ones that are publicly available [6]. The authors should
have thought of incorporating some new studies with the existing literature about maturity
models to make the paper strong. Had they done a new study about the subject, they would have
come up with new concepts to integrate to the existing views. In this case the article has just
relied on secondary sources but no primary data identified.
Literature review analysis forms the focus of the authors. This has been done well
enough since the authors chose to focus on review of literature but no primary data. The article
identifies the two perspectives to complement each other well and also the fact that they cannot
be separated based on their ability to conflate in many of the BPM maturity models reviewed in
the article [7]. The authors have pointed out that in the event that the existing maturity models
get developed further, the developers need to focus on a more clarity in relation to the entities