Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Maturity Model
Maturity Model
www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-669X.htm
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a practical instrument for self-evaluation of maturity
in the processes of procurement and supply management, applicable to small and medium-size
companies, as well as to show how the use of this evaluation tool may help companies to decide what to
improve in these processes.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on an empirical and theoretical framework, the instrument
developed measures the maturity of procurement and supply management activities in four
macro-processes: materials management, purchase process, supplier evaluation process and process of
procurement planning. For testing the self-evaluation instrument, the authors evaluated the maturity of
48 hospitals and 37 metal-mechanic manufacturing companies located in the southern region of Brazil.
To show how to use this tool to decide what to improve in procurement and supply processes, the
authors conducted a comparative analysis of a hospital and a metal-mechanic company, in relation to
the sample of the same segment.
Findings – The results show that the instrument is reliable for practical application. Metal-mechanic
industries have a greater maturity in the purchase process than in the other three macro-processes. The
management of materials is the most mature macro-process in hospitals. Comparing hospitals to
metal-mechanic companies, the present research shows that, between 20 and 99 employees, hospitals
tend to have a higher level of maturity in the purchase process than metal-mechanic companies. With
100 employees or more, metal-mechanic companies are more mature than hospitals in procurement
planning and in selection/evaluation of suppliers.
Originality/value – Presenting a useful self-evaluation instrument, this work demonstrates that the
measurement of the maturity level, and benchmarking it with other companies, may help a firm to
International Journal of Quality
decide what to improve in its processes of procurement and materials management, showing how an and Service Sciences
Vol. 8 No. 3, 2016
pp. 315-333
Research supported by National Research Council of Brasil – CNPq and Foundation for Research © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1756-669X
and Innovation of the State of Santa Catarina, FAPESC. DOI 10.1108/IJQSS-04-2016-0036
IJQSS economic sector can understand itself better. Few scientific studies have practical application to the
assessment of the degree of maturity of procurement and supply management processes. Besides that
8,3 the authors did not find other papers presenting a comparison of different segments.
Keywords Maturity model, Benchmarking, Hospitals, Metal-mechanic companies,
Procurement process, Small and medium-size companies
Paper type Research paper
316
Introduction
Nowadays, competition between organizations is a reality in all economic areas. This
competition does not occur only between companies but also between supply chains
(Christopher, 2005; Lambert and Cooper, 2000). More specifically, in recent years, the
purchasing volume (percentage of an organization’s total turnover) has grown
substantially. Under these circumstances, a better performance by the procurement
function may make a considerable contribution to the overall performance of a firm
(Schiele, 2007). According to Weele (2005), most of the cost of goods is raw materials,
components and services acquired. Procurement and supply efficiency can therefore
lead to substantial competitive advantage (Langley and Coyle, 2012). However, how can
an organization improve the performance of its procurement and supply processes?
One of the aspects is its maturity level, which affects a company’s performance
(Batenburg and Versendaal, 2008). According to Becker et al. (2009):
[…] a maturity model consists of a sequence of maturity levels for a class of objects. It
represents a typical evolution path of these objects in the form of discrete stages. Typically,
these objects are organizations or processes.
Having expanded strongly in the past two decades, the concept of maturity
management arose from the concept of quality management. Based on the principles of
quality, the first to propose a maturity framework was Crosby (1979), in his book Quality
Is Free. The maturity grid of quality management (Crosby, 1979) describes five
evolutionary stages of adopting practices of quality: uncertainty, awakening,
enlightenment, wisdom and certainty. To evaluate the maturity of the company as a
whole, different aspects, or dimensions, evaluate these stages of maturity. These aspects
are understanding and attitude of management, organization status, handling of
problems, cost of quality, improvement actions and characteristics report. Based on
Crosby’s model, the Software Engineering Institute developed a model of five levels,
known as the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), for software development (Paulk et al.,
1993). This model guides the improvement of the software-development process
through optimum management practices. Nevertheless, although it is widely applied,
the model has several limitations, particularly for small companies.
Brodman and Johnson (1994, p. 335), interviewing 190 software companies, found
that the major concerns and difficulties for small companies in implementing CMM
models are:
[…] the cost of implementing specific aspects of a process improvement program, the difficult
(if not impossible) hurdle of satisfying CMM practices within a small organization, and
problems with the CMM as a basic guide.
Another problem for implementing the CMM in small companies is that many of the
practices within the CMM are not applicable to these organizations (Saiedian and Carr,
1997). In addition, Staplesa et al. (2007), contacting 274 Australian organizations, found Maturity
that “small organizations that do not adopt CMMI tend to say that adopting it would be model
infeasible”. Thus, it is necessary to develop CMMs aligned with companies’ size and
segments and with which aspects of maturity are measured.
Particularly related to maturity models in supply management, most have worked on
the management of the chain as a whole, involving suppliers and customers (Stevens,
1989; Ayers and Malmberg, 2002; McCormack and Lockamy, 2004; Liu and Wang, 2006; 317
Garcia, 2008). These works seek to identify strategic aspects of supply-chain
management, mainly applying to large companies that are capable of managing it in an
integrated manner. For small businesses, the integration of this chain is low and
difficult, it being necessary first to improve the company’s own maturity. In addition,
supply-chain management maturity models are usually related to manufacturing
companies. Thus, developing a maturity model in procurement and supply
management for small and medium-size companies is still a problem to solve.
According to Schiele (2007), there is a highly significant relationship between
procurement’s maturity level and the results of cost-reduction efforts. In this sense,
Foerstl et al. (2013) identify how different practices of procurement have an impact on
purchasing performance and, indirectly, on financial performance. Paulraj et al. (2006),
Schiele (2007) and Batenburg and Versendaal (2008) found that a higher maturity level
has a positive impact on the performance of the organization.
Although there is confirmation of the relevance of maturity in procurement and
supply management, there are concerns about the practical application of maturity
models in this field. As shown by Koivisto (2013), the problem with the models that have
been developed is that most of them are just conceptual and are not fully tested. Making
a bibliographic review, Schweiger (2014) shows only seven models that have been
empirically tested. Therefore, we should explore the practical applications of maturity
models, demonstrating how companies can use self-assessment to improve their
management.
Schweiger (2014, p. 544) also states that:
[…] it is highly unlikely and almost impossible to apply a single model of maturity for all types
of businesses and branches; however, this is what most of these models do.
The author suggests that some aspects are different if dealing with large or small
companies. Therefore, it is important to develop distinct models, adapted depending on
the size of the companies. In addition, it is important that the assessment of the degree of
maturity of a given company is not individual but makes a comparison between
companies in the same segment and sizes, or “benchmarking”.
As maturity models are difficult to implement in small and medium-size enterprises
(Brodman and Johnson, 1994; Saiedian and Carr, 1997; Staplesa et al., 2007), because of
the demands and needs of these companies being different to those of large ones
(Schweiger, 2014) and also because most models of maturity in supply management are
conceptual and untested (Koivisto, 2013), this paper has the following aim:
To present a practical instrument for self-evaluation of procurement management maturity,
applicable to small and medium-size companies, showing how the use of this evaluation tool
may help an organization to decide what improve in its procurement management processes.
To do this, the present paper first shows the origins and evolution of maturity models,
showing that they are founded in quality management concepts. Then, it shows the
IJQSS dimensions of procurement processes and supply management and how to measure the
8,3 degree of maturity of these processes. It then shows the profile of the organizations
where the present maturity assessment tool was tested: 48 hospitals and 37
metal-mechanic manufacturing companies, located in the southern region of Brazil.
Subsequently, it shows the level of maturity of the companies researched. It also shows
that some aspects are not different between the two segments but others are. Finally,
318 two examples show how hospitals and metal-mechanic companies could use this tool to
conduct benchmarking, deciding what to improve in their supply management
processes.
We apply the present research to hospitals and metal-mechanic companies because
of the relevance of materials management for these organizations. Concerning hospitals,
although labor costs make up the bulk of total costs, still there is potential for
improvement in the processes of procurement and materials management (Mettler,
2013). For metal-mechanic companies, where lean manufacturing has been key to
strategic competitiveness, materials and supply management are so relevant that
concepts such as “lean procurement” have been developed (Kaynak, 2005; Wilson and
Roy, 2009).
320
IJQSS
Table I.
measured
Factors and aspects
Factor description Aspects Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability Item weight
Materials management
Activities’ scope Structure of the supply process 0.90 0.83 0.90 0.34
Formalizing responsibilities 0.85 0.33
Centralizing responsibilities 0.84 0.33
Process of materials’ standardization Product standardization process 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.26
Review of standardization 0.86 0.25
Economic analysis 0.84 0.25
Multidisciplinary team 0.84 0.24
Receiving process Control of differences 0.92 0.88 0.93 0.34
Receiving warranty 0.90 0.33
Process analysis 0.89 0.33
Storage process Organization of materials area 0.87 0.88 0.92 0.21
Preservation of materials quality 0.86 0.21
Storage centralization 0.84 0.20
First in, first out 0.82 0.20
Restricted access 0.74 0.18
Distribution process Computerization and control 0.89 0.75 0.88 0.50
Traceability 0.89 0.50
Inventory policy Assessment of divergences 0.89 0.72 0.84 0.37
Periodic count 0.87 0.37
Legislation audit 0.61 0.26
Purchase process
Process of quotation and budget Electronic system of quotation 0.88 0.80 0.24
Large number of suppliers 0.86 0.23
Technical and commercial evaluation 0.84 0.87 0.23
Evaluation of budgets 0.83 0.23
Participation in buying groups 0.25 0.07
Process for urgent purchases Urgent purchases monitoring 0.88 0.73 0.37
Formalized process for urgent purchases 0.88 0.85 0.37
Price guarantee 0.64 0.27
Suppliers evaluation
Supplier selection and qualification process Formal evaluation process 0.88 0.75 0.86 0.36
Check on formal regulations 0.84 0.34
Initial approval audit 0.75 0.30
Supplier evaluation process Indicators analysis 0.92 0.89 0.94 0.34
Periodical evaluation process 0.91 0.33
Feedback to the supplier 0.90 0.33
Table I.
321
model
Maturity
IJQSS to the different dimensions measured (Schweiger, 2014), one needs to identify how each
8,3 aspect to be measured should be evaluated. In this sense, models to assess procurement
and supply management propose different ways to measure the maturity level of each
question or characteristic. Some use a Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to
“strongly agree” (Plomp and Batenburg, 2009; Batenburg and Versendaal, 2008). A
problem of this type of scale is that the measurement ends up being subjective,
322 depending on the degree of the respondent’s knowledge and the manner in which he/she
analyzes to define the level of agreement. Other works propose predefined scenarios,
describing each level of maturity of each aspect (Schiele, 2007) or also descriptors of
some points of scale (1 – Basic Practice, 3 – Medium Practice, 5 – Advanced Practice;
Foerstl et al., 2013). In this case, the interviewee should understand the theory and the
commonly used practices (Koivisto, 2013). In addition, the questionnaire becomes too
long for the respondent to answer. Another way is related to answering just “yes/no” for
each situation described (Reyes and Giachetti, 2010). In this case, although with
objective responses, there is uncertainty about the aspects that are started but not
completed. For example, if a process is formally under implementation, what would be
the answer to the following question: “Are procurement procedures standardized”? In
addition, questions must be specific, which makes the evaluation questionnaire very
long.
This paper proposes the assessment of the degree of formality and of
implementation. As shown in Figure 1, to assess the degree of maturity of the variable
“Process of budgeting”, the questionnaire has a sequence of questions, from basic to
advanced aspects of the measured variable. The evaluation of the maturity level is
consistent and not subjective because it objectively evaluates the implementation stage
(not implemented, under implementation and implemented) and the formalization level
(informal, formal).
The questionnaire has 14 factors and, as shown in Table I, each factor measures
different aspects. The weight used for weighting the importance of each aspect is based
on the factorial load of each aspect in its respective factor, obtained by Varimax rotation.
As can be seen in Table I, the aspect of “participation in purchasing groups” had less
Formalization and
implementation stage
===================
implementing
deployed and
implemented
or started to
Do not have
implement
Effectively
informally
Formally
Formally
running
Adoption of formal quotation and budget that aim to identify the best
proposals of the market and guide the purchasing system
Evaluation of proposals based on clearly defined commercial and
Figure 1. technical criteria, aided by a computerized system
Measurement of the Adoption of electronic quotation tools in order to optimize and
streamline the buying process
degree of maturity of
Company participation in buying groups, aiming to reduce the total
the factors cost of purchase
weight in relation to other aspects of factor 11, the process of quotation and budgeting. Maturity
This procedure defines the weight of every aspect in each dimension. model
To confirm the investigated dimensions, we carried out a factorial Varimax rotation
of the 14 surveyed factors, grouping them into four dimensions (Table II) or
macro-processes:
(1) materials management;
(2) purchase process; 323
(3) process of supplier selection and evaluation; and
(4) procurement planning process.
These dimensions explain 78.8 per cent of the variance. With Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability greater than 0.7, all dimensions are considered satisfactory
(Koufteros, 1999; Stratman and Roth, 2002). The materials management process
encompasses factors related to the internal management of the company, such as the
definition of products to be used, inventory control, storage and materials handling.
The purchase process includes factors related to pricing quotation and urgent supplies.
The process of selection and evaluation of suppliers measures the external aspects of the
company, related to accreditation, evaluation and feedback to suppliers. The
procurement planning process involves inventory turnover control and demand
forecasting for acquisitions, including long-term planning.
Researched organizations
The present research was carried out in Santa Catarina State, Brazil. This state has
small, medium-size and large hospitals but with no more than 500 beds. Of the 221
Component
Surveyed factors 1 2 3 4
Notes: Values in the same row and sub-table not sharing the same
superscript are significantly different at p < 0.1 in the two-sided test of
equality for column means. Cells with no superscript are not included in the Figure 2.
test. Tests assume equal variances; tests adjusted for all pairwise Maturity level of
comparisons within a row of each innermost sub-table using the Bonferroni hospitals, according
correction to size
degree of maturity of hospitals with different legal forms, we did not find significant
dissimilarities in the evaluated macro-processes.
Figure 3 seeks to identify whether there are differences in maturity between the
evaluated dimensions, depending on the number of employees. In general, it appears
that materials management has a significantly higher degree of maturity than the other
three (Procurement planning, p-value ⫽ 0.03; Evaluation and selection of suppliers,
p-value ⫽ 0.01; Purchase process, p-value ⫽ 0.032). Hospitals with from 20 to 99
employees are more mature in the management of materials, and in the procurement
process, than in procurement planning and in the process of evaluation and selection of
suppliers. Hospitals with 500 or more employees have significantly more mature
purchase planning than the procurement process. This may be because of the planning
process facilitating the purchasing process. There are no dissimilarities between
dimensions of hospitals with different legal profiles.
Further, we evaluated the maturity in the level of factors (Figure 4), checking
dissimilarities between hospitals of different sizes and legal profiles. It is interesting to
notice the evolution of the degree of maturity according to the size of hospitals. As we
can see in Figure 5, there is an evolution of each factor, depending on size. We can also
see that “storage process” tends to have a level of maturity highlighted in relation to the
other factors in hospitals with fewer than 20 employees but no difference if compared
with larger hospitals (p-value ⬎ 0.10). However, the process of quotation is significantly
different (less mature) in hospitals with fewer than 20 employees if compared to the
others (p-value ⬍ 0.10). The demand forecast is meaningfully higher only for large
2 - Materials standardization
8,3
14 - Supplier evaluation
5 - Distribution process
10 - Buying lead-time
9 - Buying/restocking
3 - Receiving process
8 - Demand forecast
6 - Inventory policy
4 - Storage process
qualification
supply area
326
purchases
planning
control
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Private 2.69 2.69 2.67a 3.08 2.13 3.32 1.94a 2.25 2.69 2.88a 2.97 2.8 2.78 2.26
Type
Private 2.58 2.81 2.83a 3.26 2.43 2.87 2.50a 2.77 2.69 2.22b 2.75 2.28 2.55 2.23
nonprofit
Public 2.37 2.85 3.48b 3.39 2.36 3.26 2.78 b
3.21 2.53 2.86a 2.81 2.87 3.10 2.76
<20 2.26 2.00a 2.34a 2.82 1.36a 2.13a 1.97a 2.21a 2.21a 2.14a,b 1.95a 2.05 2.26 1.81a
Employees
Figure 4. 20-99 2.3 2.62a,b 2.57a 3.18 2.28a,b 2.70a 2.31a 2.66a,b 2.46a 1.97a 2.80b 2.26 2.49 2.10a,b
Differences in factor 100-500 2.8 3.17b 3.19a,b 3.47 2.72b 3.31b 2.56a,b 2.78a,b 2.76a,b 2.50a,b 3.02b 2.54 2.82 2.35a,b
maturity, depending >500 2.92 3.31b,c 3.62b 3.5 3.00b,c 3.68b 3.14b 3.56b 3.28b 3.13b 3.12b 2.72 2.98 3.00b
on the profile and
size of hospitals Note: a, b, c: p-value < 0.10
Figure 5.
(a) Maturity of
hospitals according
to number of
employees; (b)
Maturity of hospitals
with different
profiles
hospitals. Although there are differences between the averages of maturity, there are no
statistically significant differences between the factors of “scope of supply area”,
“storage process”, “process for urgent purchases” and “selection/qualification of
suppliers”.
Observing Figure 5(b) and Figure 4, we see that there are few differences between the
legal profiles of the institutions now analyzed. Public hospitals are more mature than
private hospitals (profit and nonprofit) in the processes of receiving materials and
inventory turnover control. On the other hand, nonprofit hospitals are less mature in
buying lead-time.
Macro-processes
Materials Procurement Selection/ Purchase
management planning evaluation process
===================================
a a a
General 2.82 2.68 2.79 2.50b
Number of employees
<20 20-99 100-500 >500
Materials management 1.91a 2.31a 3.30b 3.63b
Procurement planning 1.81a 1.96a 3.17b 3.84b
a a b
Supplier selection and evaluation 1.49 2.16 3.35 3.83b
a,b a b
Purchase process 1.81 1.96 2.94 3.10a,b
Figure 6.
Note: Values in the same row and sub-table not sharing the same superscript are Maturity of
significantly different at p < 0.1 in the two-sided test of equality for column macro-processes of
means. Cells with no superscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal metal-mechanical
variances 14 - Supplier evaluation companies
5 - Distribution process
13 - Supplier selection
7 - Inventory turnover
10 - Buying lead-time
9 - Buying/restocking
1 - Scope of activities
3 - Receiving process
8 - Demand forecast
6 - Inventory policy
4 - Storage process
and qualification
standardization
11 - Process of
of supply area
2 - Materials
purchases
quotation
planning
control
<20 1.88a 1.65a 1.94a 2.06a 1.80a,b 2.15a 1.94a 2.10a 1.81a 1.40a 1.95a,b 1.67a 1.39a 1.60a
Employees
20-99 2.62a,b 2.30a,b 2.47a 2.54a,b 1.55a 2.40a 1.84a 1.85a 2.35a 1.80a 1.95a 1.97a 2.45a,b 1.87a
100- Figure 7.
3.38b,c 3.18b 3.65b 3.37b 2.75b,c 3.39b 3.12b,c 3.40b 3.03a,b 3.13b 3.13b 2.76a 3.31b,c 3.38b Evaluation of the
500
>500 4.00c 3.15a,b 3.93b 3.55b,c 3.60c 3.52a,b 3.76c 3.80b 3.90b 3.90b 3.07a,b 3.12a 3.66c 4.00b differences in the
maturity of factors,
Note: Values in the same row and sub-table not sharing the same superscript are significantly depending on the size
different at p < 0.1 in the two-sided test of equality for column means. Cells with no of metal-mechanic
superscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances companies
IJQSS Comparing hospitals with metal-mechanic companies
8,3 Figure 9 shows whether there are significant differences in maturity between the
studied macro-processes, comparing metal-mechanic companies with hospitals.
Metal-mechanic industries have a greater maturity in the purchase process (p-value ⬍
0.10). Regarding hospitals, it appears that the management of materials is more mature
than the other three dimensions (Procurement planning, p-value ⫽ 0.03; Evaluation and
328 selection of suppliers, p-value ⫽ 0.01; Purchase process, p-value ⫽ 0.032). The difference
between the two segments (hospitals and industries) is that the industries also worry
about aspects of selecting suppliers. This difference may be because of hospitals having
large companies as suppliers and being at their mercy. Indeed, looking in terms of
averages, it turns out that in hospitals the process of evaluating and selecting suppliers
is the one with the lowest level of maturity.
Figure 10 shows a comparison between hospitals and metal-mechanic companies, for
each level of size (number of employees). With fewer than 20 employees, we cannot say
that there is a difference of maturity between these two segments. From 20 to 99
employees, hospitals tend to have a higher level of maturity in relation to the purchase
process. In the case of hospitals, this may be because of how critical this process is in
relation to materials costs. With 100 employees or more, metal-mechanic companies are
more mature than hospitals in procurement planning and selection/evaluation of
suppliers.
Figure 8.
Maturity of
metal-mechanic
enterprises,
depending on
number of employees
Figure 9.
Macro-processes
Comparison of
Materials Procurement Selection/ Purchase
macro-process
management planning evaluation process
maturity: hospitals
==========================
and metal-mechanic Hospitals 2.82a 2.58b 2.49b 2.59b
industries Metal-mechanic 2.82 a
2.68 a
2.79 a
2.50b
To show how an organization could decide what to improve in its materials Maturity
management, we selected for analysis a company in the metal-mechanic sector and one model
of the hospitals, comparing each one with the others of the same size.
We call the metal-mechanic company “Company A”. It is more than 30 years old and
has between 100 and 500 employees. Figure 11 shows that Company A has a lower level
of maturity in relation to the other researched companies in supply area (Dim 1,
p-value ⫽ 0.000), product standardization (Dim 2, p-value ⫽ 0.000), process of 329
distribution (Dim 5, p-value ⫽ 0.000), process of quotation and budgeting (Dim 11,
p-value ⫽ 0.000), process of urgent procurement (Dim 12, p-value ⫽ 0:02), selection/
qualification of suppliers (Dim 13, p-value ⫽ 0.002) and supplier evaluation (Dim 14,
p-value ⫽ 0.003). It is close to its competitors in relation to the other factors.
Among the hospitals, Figure 11 shows the situation of “Hospital A” relative to the
others. This hospital has around 250 employees, including 120 doctors. It has specialties
in gynecology, obstetrics, neonatology and orthopedics. In this case, we are also
comparing it with hospitals of same size (100-500 employees).
Figure 11 shows that Hospital A is below the level of other hospitals regarding
inventory turnover control (Dim 7, p-value ⫽ 0.000). That is followed by demand
forecasting (Dim 8, p-value ⫽ 0.001), storage process (Dim 4, p-value ⫽ 0.009),
standardization process (Dim 2, p-value ⫽ 0.025) and receiving process (Dim 3,
Number of employees
<20 20-99 100-500 >500
Figure 11.
(a) Benchmarking
maturity of
metal-mechanic
Company A; (b)
Benchmarking
maturity of Hospital
A
IJQSS p-value ⫽ 0.006). It is also less mature in selection and qualification of suppliers (Dim 13,
8,3 p-value ⫽ 0.003) and in evaluation of suppliers (Dim 14, p-value ⫽ 0.006). On the other
hand, Hospital A is better in the process of distribution (Dim 5, p-value ⫽ 0.004) and in
inventory policy (Dim 6, p-value ⫽ 0.000).
Final considerations
330 The function of procurement and supply management, and its activities, are relevant to
the overall performance of a company. Thus, it is very important for companies to
improve how they deal with different aspects of these activities. Evaluating and
developing the maturity of this function’s activities are relevant for cost reduction and
reliability improvement.
In this paper, we have developed a practical instrument for companies’
self-evaluation of procurement and supply management maturity, applicable to small
and medium-size companies. This instrument evaluates the maturity of four
macro-processes: materials management, purchase process, supplier evaluation process
and procurement planning process. To test and show how companies can use it to
evaluate and take actions, we applied the instrument to 48 hospitals and 37
metal-mechanic companies, located in the southern region of Brazil. With statistical
tests, the results show that the instrument is reliable for practical application.
Metal-mechanic industries have a greater maturity in the purchase process than in the
other evaluated macro-processes. Regarding hospitals, the management of materials is
more mature than the three other macro-processes.
Another relevant aspect to know better what to improve is that a company should
compare its maturity level with other companies in its specific market segment and size.
As stated by Schweiger (2014, p. 544):
[…] the assessment of the degree of maturity of a given company should not be performed in
solo fashion, but make comparisons between companies in the same segment and sizes, or
benchmarking.
Showing the relevance of benchmarking, this paper presents a comparative analysis of
one hospital and one metal-mechanic company to the others in the same segment. The
results show more specifically what to improve, reducing efforts and costs for
improving competitiveness.
We understand that researchers should allow the practical dissemination of
knowledge. Thus, to help hospitals and metal-mechanic organizations improve their
maturity level and help researchers to use and test the instrument hereby developed, the
self-evaluation instrument is available on contacting the first author of this paper.
References
Arnold, J.R.T., Chapman, S.N. and Clive, L.M. (2008), Introduction to Materials Management, 6th
ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ayers, J.B. and Malmberg, D.M. (2002), “Supply chain systems: are you ready?”, Information
Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 18-27.
Balakrishnan, A. and Natarajan, H.P. (2014), “Integrated procurement planning in multi-division
firms”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 10, pp. 1795-1810.
Batenburg, R. and Versendaal, J. (2008), “Maturity matters: performance determinants of the
procurement business function”, ECIS, Galway, pp. 563-574.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and Pöppelbuß, J. (2009), “Developing maturity models for IT Maturity
management – a procedure model and its application,” Business Information and Systems
Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 213-222.
model
Brodman, J.G. and Johnson, D.L. (1994), “What small business and small organizations say about
the CMM: experience report”, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software
Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Sorrento, pp. 331-340.
Christopher, M. (2005), Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Added 331
Networks, Pearson Education, New York, NY.
Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Elzarka, H. and Bell, L. (1995), “Object-oriented methodology for materials-management
systems”, Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 121 No. 4,
pp. 438-445.
Foerstl, K., Hartmann, E., Wynstra, F. and Moser, R. (2013), “Cross-functional integration and
functional coordination in purchasing and supply management: antecedents and effects on
purchasing and firm performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 689-721.
Garcia, H. (2008), “A capability maturity model to assess supply chain performance”, FIU
Electronic Theses and Dissertations, paper 191, available at: http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/
etd/191
Jones, C.R. (1994), “Improving your key business processes”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 25-29.
Kaynak, H. (2005), “Implementing JIT purchasing: does the level of technical complexity in the
production process make a difference?”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 76-100.
Koivisto, A.J. (2013), “In search of purchasing maturity – audits and implications”, Master’s thesis,
Aalto University, School of Science, Department of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Helsinki.
Koufteros, X.A. (1999), “Testing a model of pull production: a paradigm for manufacturing
research using structural equation modeling”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 467-488.
Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83.
Langley, C.J. and Coyle, J.J. (2012), Managing Supply Chains: A Logistics Approach, 9th ed.,
South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Lettice, F., Wyatt, C. and Evans, S. (2010), “Buyer-supplier partnerships during product design
and development in the global automotive sector: who invests, in what and when?”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 309-319.
Liu, M.F. and Wang, Y.J. (2006), “The model of studying supply chain logistics service capability
maturity”, Commercial Research, Vol. 21 No. 19, pp. 1-15.
McCormack, K. and Lockamy, A. III (2004), “The development of a supply chain management
process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 272-278.
McKinsey Global Survey Results (2008), “Economic conditions snapshot”, November, available
at: www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/mckinsey-global-survey-
results-economic-conditions-snapshot-november-2008
IJQSS Mettler, T. (2013), “Transformation of the hospital supply chain: how to measure the maturity of”,
Healthcare Information Technology Innovation and Sustainability: Frontiers and Adoption,
8,3 McMaster University, Ontario, pp. 180-193.
Monczka, R.M., Handfield, R.B., Giunipero, L.C. and Patterson, J.L. (2009), Purchasing and Supply
Chain Management, 4th ed., Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.
Monczka, R.M., Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B. and Ragatz, G.L. (1998), “Success factors in strategic
332 supplier alliances: the buying company perspective”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 553-577.
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. and Weber, C.V. (1993), “Capability maturity model for
software, Version 1.1”, Technical report”, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Paulraj, A., Chen, I.J. and Flynn, J. (2006), “Levels of strategic purchasing: impact on supply
integration and performance”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 107-122.
Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B. and Ragatz, G.L. (2003), “A model of supplier integration into new
product development”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 284-299.
Plomp, M.G. and Batenburg, R.S. (2009), “Procurement maturity, alignment and performance: a
Dutch hospital case comparison”, Proceedings of the 22nd Bled eConference: eEnablement:
Facilitating an Open, Effective and Representative eSociety, Bled, pp. 203-219.
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B. and Petersen, K.J. (2002), “Benefits associated with supplier
integration into new product development under conditions of technology uncertainty”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 389-400.
Reyes, H. and Giachetti, R. (2010), “Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in
Mexico”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 415-424.
Saiedian, H. and Carr, N. (1997), “Characterizing a software process maturity model for small
organizations”, ACM SIGICE Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2-11.
Schiele, H. (2007), “Supply-management maturity, cost savings and purchasing absorptive
capacity: testing the procurement–performance link”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 274-293.
Schweiger, J.A. (2014), “Theory-based perspective on maturity models in purchasing and supply
management”, in Blecker, T. (Ed.), Innovative Methods in Logistics and Supply Chain
Management, epubli, Berlin, pp. 531-553.
Staplesa, M., Niazia, M., Jefferya, R., Abrahamsd, A., Byatte, P. and Murphyf, R. (2007), “An
exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI”, Journal of Systems and
Software, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 883-895.
Stevens, G.C. (1989), “Integrating the supply chain”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Materials Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 3-8.
Stratman, J.K. and Roth, A.V. (2002), “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) competence constructs:
two-stage multi-item scale development and validation”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 601-628.
Stump, R.L. and Heide, J. (1996), “Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial relationships”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 431-441.
Thomas, H.R., Sanvido, V.E. and Sanders, S.R. (1989), “Impact of material management on
productivity – a case study”, Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 115
No. 3, pp. 370-384.
Thomas, H.R., Riley, D.R. and Messner, J.I. (2005), “Fundamental principles of site materials
management”, Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 131 No. 7, pp. 808-815.
Weele, A.J. (2005), Purchasing and Supply Chain Management: Analysis, Strategy, Planning and Maturity
Practice, Thomson Learning, London.
model
Wilson, M.M.J. and Roy, N.R. (2009), “Enabling lean procurement: a consolidation model for small
and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 817-833.
Further reading
Carnegie Mellon University (2010), CMMI for Acquisition Version 1.3: Improving Processes for
333
Acquiring Better Products and Services, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com