73 / 188
71
After having described the elements of a maturity assessment model it is necessary
to see how the set-up of a model and its implementation can be organised. This is shown
in Figure 3.16. De Bruin et al. promote a basic framework for developing maturity
assessment models [8]. In the first step, it should be defined whether the scope of the
model is general, domain specific and academia or practitioner focused. In the second step,
the architecture for further design and application should be determined. This includes
the definition of the audience (internal, external), method of application (self-assessment,
third party assessment or certified practitioner), the respondents (management, staff,
business-partners) and the application (one entity, multiple entities etc.). In the third
phase (populate) it has to be identified what needs to be measured and how this can be
measured. After the first three phases, the model has to be tested, deployed and maintained.
Figure 3.16 Phases of model development
Maturity assessments are a very powerful and flexible tool for supply chain PMMS.
Besides the structured methodology to measure and evaluate the performance, it focuses
very much on the process and is therefore useful to manage the performance actively. As
it is very flexible, it is able to integrate easily aspects of supply chain management and
sustainability.
3.4 Summary and outlook
The presented instruments can be evaluated with regard to firstly whether the
mentioned guidelines and secondly whether they are able to cover sustainability in an
appropriate way. In the synopsis shown in Table 3.2, all these aspects are discussed for
each instrument.
Table 3.2 Evaluation of PMMS approaches with regard to the fulfilment of guidelines
KPIs
TCO
Value Driver
Trees
Balanced
Scorecard
Maturity
Assessments
Multidimensionality Yes, KPIs can
be very diverse.
No, only focus
on cost and
cost-evaluated
effects.
Possible.
Yes, instrument
was designed to
cover multiple
dimensions.
Yes, instrument
is flexible
enough to
cover many
dimensions.
Understandable
and evidence-based
cause-effect-
relationships
Not necessarily. Only with focus
on cost and
cost-evaluated
effects.
Yes, possibly
based on
empirical
evidence.
Yes, possibly
based on
empirical
evidence.
Yes, possibly
based on
empirical
evidence.
Free of redundancies
and inconsistencies
High risk.
Limited risk as
only cost are
calculated.
Possible risk,
but because
of calculation
method,
limited.
Preparation of
strategy map
limits the risk .
Possible, but
it has to be
addressed in
the process of
designing the
instrument.