An enterprise business intelligence maturity model (EBIMM): Conceptual framework

Chuah, Min-Hooi

doi:10.1109/icdim.2010.5664244

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The features that will sustain the model The nature of maturation The evolution of the elements or agents over time The direction of evolution Wangenheim et al, 2010 ), the assistance to e-government by companies (Röglinger & Pöppelbuβ, 2011 ), the evaluation of suppliers (Mettler, 2010 ), the development of products (Bing, Shan, Tao, & Gang, 2010 ), innovation (Essmann & Preez, 2009 ), the development of projects and their management (Gareis, 2002 ;Guangshe, Li, Jiangguo, Shuisen, & Jin, 2008 ), the assessment of the communication level in collaborative activities (Maier, Eckert, & Clarkson, 2006 ), the risk management in IT activities (Mayer & Fagundes, 2009 ), the knowledge management (Jiankang, Jiuling, Qianwen, & Kun, 2011 ;Röglinger & Pöppelbuβ, 2011 ), the development of business intelligence (Chuah, 2010 ), the evaluation of leadership capabilities and the assessment of archives systems (Wetering, Batenburg, & Lederman, 2010 ).…”

Section: Maturity Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Management Systems: A Model for Maturity Assessment

Domingues

Sampaio

Arezes

2015

Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Quality Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maturity models are adopted to minimise our complexity perception over a truly complex phenomenon. In this sense, maturity models are tools that enable the assessment of the most relevant variables that impact on the outputs of a specifi c system. Ideally a maturity model should provide information concerning the qualitative and quantitative relationships between variables and how they affect the latent variable, that is, the maturity level. Management systems (MSs) are implemented worldwide and by an increasing number of companies. Integrated management systems (IMSs) consider the implementation of one or several MSs usually coexisting with the quality management subsystem (QMS). It is intended in this chapter to report a model based on two components that enables the assessment of the IMS maturity, considering the key process agents (KPAs) identifi ed through a systematic literature review and the results collected from two surveys. IntroductionIMSs are being developed worldwide by companies operating on the most disparate activity sectors. At the present, there is not an ISO standard to assist companies during the IMSs implementation like the ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 standards guide companies on the implementation of QMSs and environmental management systems (EMSs), respectively. This fact leads to similar companies achieving different integration levels and adopting different integration paths which infl uence IMSs effi ciency. Maturity models are being developed in several fi elds and are useful tools when aiming at the assessment of complex systems like the IMSs. These complex systems are usually characterised by a great deal of variables involved, often related to each other, but

show abstract

Section: Maturity Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Management Systems: A Model for Maturity Assessment

Domingues

Sampaio

Arezes

2015

Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Quality Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disparate domains were the target of maturity models such as the quality management , the assessment of performance indicators (Aken, Letens, Coleman, Farris, & Goubergen, 2005 ), the development, testing and maintenance of software (April & Desharnais, 2005 ;Sen et al, 2011 ; Wangenheim et al, 2010 ), the assistance to e-government by companies (Röglinger & Pöppelbuβ, 2011 ), the evaluation of suppliers (Mettler, 2010 ), the development of products (Bing, Shan, Tao, & Gang, 2010 ), innovation (Essmann & Preez, 2009 ), the development of projects and their management (Gareis, 2002 ;Guangshe, Li, Jiangguo, Shuisen, & Jin, 2008 ), the assessment of the communication level in collaborative activities (Maier, Eckert, & Clarkson, 2006 ), the risk management in IT activities (Mayer & Fagundes, 2009 ), the knowledge management (Jiankang, Jiuling, Qianwen, & Kun, 2011 ;Röglinger & Pöppelbuβ, 2011 ), the development of business intelligence (Chuah, 2010 ), the evaluation of leadership capabilities and the assessment of archives systems (Wetering, Batenburg, & Lederman, 2010 ).…”

Section: Maturity Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%